Is the Western World anti-man?

K-9

A bit more on the pay gap:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/behind-the-pay-gap-between-women-and-men-2014-04-08

I'd suspect the narrative about "nothing to see here" is driven by conservative think tanks and the liked of the Wall Street Times. I'd suggest not swallowing stuff that suits a predetermined view and keeping an open mind on it.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Ah right. I suppose that is there to stop men who haven't been involved in the childs life putting a spanner in the works, agsin perfectly reasonable and understandable.

You're joking, right? What about the men who have been, or want to be (except the mother is blocking access) and the mother chooses to put the child up for adoption? After all, if the father was willing to take custody because she does not want it, she'd be liable for maintenance, which she would not with adoption.

There's nothing reasonable and understandable about presuming that 'mother knows best'. This is the very prejudice and bigotry that is at the heart of this inequality and you've just come out with some of it.

Carlos Orange

K-9 wrote: »

A bit more on the pay gap:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/behind-the-pay-gap-between-women-and-men-2014-04-08

60% of bartenders are women.

Clearly these statistics transfer directly to Ireland.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

A bit more on the pay gap:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/behind-the-pay-gap-between-women-and-men-2014-04-08

I'd suspect the narrative about "nothing to see here" is driven by conservative think tanks and the liked of the Wall Street Times. I'd suggest not swallowing stuff that suits a predetermined view and keeping an open mind on it.

You seem rather intent on discrediting this, but have yet to offer anything other than links to articles and dismissing them on the basis of the source, a dismissal, I might add, which is based solely on your opinion.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Guardianship isn't that important in day to day matters? It guarantees the father an equal say in things like education, just to take one example.

My position here is that by default, unless there's a substantive reason to make an exception, once a baby is born the father and the mother should be automatically presumed to be equal, gender-blind parents by the law - regardless of relationship status. You're approaching this from the view that by default, the mother will be the one to make the decisions in the immediate aftermath of a child being born. I'm suggesting that this basic paradigm is fundamentally wrong to begin with.

Do matters like a childs school come up everyday?

Hardly, Guardianship as I said is important, just not in normal day to day routine and events.

You seem to be reading things into my words. I believe 50/50 parenting is the ideal so you're bull****ting tbh!

I've just tried to answer a few question, that's all.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'll chime in here: Women can get pregnant, men can't. Regardless of who looks after the kids, pregnancy especially as childbirth draws near, will probably result in having to take some amount of time off from work. Ergo, it should be fair to discriminate against women of child-bearing age when interviewing applicants for a job.

You're right, that argument is complete bullshìt. Just because women can become pregnant, doesn't mean they will.

Now of course that's complete bullsh!t, and if someone made that argument they'd rightfully be slaughtered for it. But it's no different to the argument you're making. Once a child is born, there's no reason fathers' legal standing should be any different to that of mothers. The child is no longer in the womb. Unless you're claiming that women automatically make better parents, there's no argument for not affording the biological father and the biological mother equal footing from the moment of birth.

Don't confuse employment law with family law. As I pointed out earlier, there's a possible scenario where the biological father at the point of birth could be any man in the case of unmarried parents, and declaring any man the child's automatic legal guardian at birth means that another man who may be the child's biological father would be denied legal guardianship.

How you're relating that to employment law is beyond me as you're assuming that the mother is also employed. You're ignoring all sorts of context to try and tie the two together and it just isn't working.

Also, any questions over paternity can be easily solved by including DNA testing in such a law. That's the easiest "problem" you've come up with to solve.

DNA testing is included in the law as far as I'm aware, though again The Corinthian may be able to clear that one up.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

You seem rather intent on discrediting this, but have yet to offer anything other than links to articles and dismissing them on the basis of the source, a dismissal, I might add, which is based solely on your opinion.

I get you are dead set on it and I know you'll never question it. It isn't really aimed at you.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're joking, right? What about the men who have been, or want to be (except the mother is blocking access) and the mother chooses to put the child up for adoption? After all, if the father was willing to take custody because she does not want it, she'd be liable for maintenance, which she would not with adoption.

There's nothing reasonable and understandable about presuming that 'mother knows best'. This is the very prejudice and bigotry that is at the heart of this inequality and you've just come out with some of it.

So you are ok with men who had no part in their children's lives stopping adoptions?

I can put words in mouth too, easy that.

A man who was denied access will have applied to courts to get it restored and will be able to show that he was always interested.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

So you are ok with men who had no part in their children's lives stopping adoptions?

Well you seem dead set on allowing adoptions where the mother does not want to keep the child but does not want to allow a perfectly fit father to take custody, so you're not in a position to play the 'won't someone think of the children card' because the only interests you're defending are the mother's, at least I'm admitting that I'm defending the father's position.

A man who was denied access will have applied to courts to get it restored and will be able to show that he was always interested.

Untrue. He could have been given access and she's blocking it. After all, nothing will happen to her as any punitive action is "not in the child's interest". Happens all the time too.

A father should have the right to block adoption and then a court should decide if this block should stand. Your position is that the mother 'knows best' and the father should have no say and this says a lot about your attitudes towards parenting roles, TBH.

Carlos Orange

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As I pointed out earlier, there's a possible scenario where the biological father at the point of birth could be any man in the case of unmarried parents, and declaring any man the child's automatic legal guardian at birth means that another man who may be the child's biological father would be denied legal guardianship.

You seem to keep mistaking making a childs biological father automatically a guardian with making someone who says they are a childs biological father automatically a guardian. Paternal genetic testing only take a couple of days. If potential fathers had an automatic right to paternal testing that is how long it would take to confirm their guardianship.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

I get you are dead set on it and I know you'll never question it. It isn't really aimed at you.

Let us know when you question it with something more than vague FUD.

hatrickpatrick

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're joking, right? What about the men who have been, or want to be (except the mother is blocking access) and the mother chooses to put the child up for adoption? After all, if the father was willing to take custody because she does not want it, she'd be liable for maintenance, which she would not with adoption.

There's nothing reasonable and understandable about presuming that 'mother knows best'. This is the very prejudice and bigotry that is at the heart of this inequality and you've just come out with some of it.

K-9's entire argument is based around the assumption that from the moment a child is born, it will bond more with the mother than with the father and be closer to the mother, and that the mother by default will decide where the child lives etc.

It's an assumption as sexist as any other assumption made on the basis of gender, but it's so culturally ingrained that I suspect K-9 doesn't realise that either of us is suggesting changing it.

One eyed Jack

newport2 wrote: »

Well if a discussion was in place regarding the percentage of male vs female workers in senior roles at certain stages of their careers and significantly more male ones were, the point would probably be made that a lot of women - by choice or not - take time out of their careers to have children and that this has an impact on overall figures. If someone said at this point "You cannot bestow gender blind equal rights when both parties are intrinsically and biologically different." there would be uproar.

There would be uproar because you're not just comparing males to females any more, you're comparing mothers to males, when in order for your comparison to hold true - you have to compare mothers to fathers, and this is the basis for the argument concerning paternity leave, that fathers should be entitled to equal parental leave as mothers.

The whole gender based pay and promotional opportunities with regard to employment is an utter mind melt of an argument that's actually more of a head melt than family law tbh. It's why I purposely try and avoid it, because again you're doing the same as patrick in assuming that just because women can give birth means that they will, at some point in their lives, and take time off work whether they want to or not.

It's obvious that if people put family before their career, or vice versa, that there has to be a compromise somewhere. That's why there's no uproar from me when people start talking about getting more people into one career area or another based solely on their gender. It's an argument that ignores the possibility that individuals actually have a choice in these matters, and maybe they don't want to go into STEM, or social care or whatever else. Having worked in both fields, they both have their advantages and disadvantages - software development can be a high pressure, high stress environment, great if you thrive in that environment. Social care or childcare can also be a high stress, high pressure environment, but I'll take the smell of dirty coffee over the smell of rancid nappies any day! :pac:

No equal rights for women because they are biologically the ones who have children? Unacceptable. But here we are with the situation reversed and it's ok to say no equal rights for men because of the way they are biologically.

You're not comparing men with women, you're comparing men with mothers. Of course that's going to mean there are consequences to choices for both parties and you're not just reversing the situation there, you're talking about two completely different scenarios.

Would you want fathers to have equal paternity leave, because that would mean that their careers would equally be stunted if they chose to take time out to parent their children. I couldn't see men in employment flocking to take advantage of that particular right tbh, but making it an available option is what I meant about giving people more rights as opposed to taking them away from people.

The Corinthian

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're not comparing men with women, you're comparing men with mothers.

Actually, he's comparing fathers with mothers.

newport2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There would be uproar because you're not just comparing males to females any more, you're comparing mothers to males, when in order for your comparison to hold true - you have to compare mothers to fathers, and this is the basis for the argument concerning paternity leave, that fathers should be entitled to equal parental leave as mothers.

The whole gender based pay and promotional opportunities with regard to employment is an utter mind melt of an argument that's actually more of a head melt than family law tbh. It's why I purposely try and avoid it, because again you're doing the same as patrick in assuming that just because women can give birth means that they will, at some point in their lives, and take time off work whether they want to or not.

It's obvious that if people put family before their career, or vice versa, that there has to be a compromise somewhere. That's why there's no uproar from me when people start talking about getting more people into one career area or another based solely on their gender. It's an argument that ignores the possibility that individuals actually have a choice in these matters, and maybe they don't want to go into STEM, or social care or whatever else. Having worked in both fields, they both have their advantages and disadvantages - software development can be a high pressure, high stress environment, great if you thrive in that environment. Social care or childcare can also be a high stress, high pressure environment, but I'll take the smell of dirty coffee over the smell of rancid nappies any day! :pac:





You're not comparing men with women, you're comparing men with mothers. Of course that's going to mean there are consequences to choices for both parties and you're not just reversing the situation there, you're talking about two completely different scenarios.

Would you want fathers to have equal paternity leave, because that would mean that their careers would equally be stunted if they chose to take time out to parent their children. I couldn't see men in employment flocking to take advantage of that particular right tbh, but making it an available option is what I meant about giving people more rights as opposed to taking them away from people.

I'm not comparing anything. You made the statement: "You cannot bestow gender blind equal rights when both parties are intrinsically and biologically different." in relation to fathers not getting equal rights. I'm making the point that that is unreasonable and that it wouldn't hold up if you made it the other way around. You asked for an example, so I gave an example of where it would be unacceptable, not my opinion.

I would be in favour of equal paternity leave tbh, I would see it as a step towards equality. I also think it would be good for children and for society as a whole.

One eyed Jack

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, he's comparing fathers with mothers.

And when they both experience pregnancy the same way, then the comparison might be valid, but until then I'm reminded of a question Robert DeNiro asks Ben Stiller in "Meet the Parents" -


"I have nipples Greg, could you milk me?"

ceadaoin.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Explain how after a child is born, the biological differences between male and female reproduction are at all relevant?
.

Breastfeeding? Babies are hard wired to bond with their mother at birth. That's a biological fact.

Dimithy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Do you see the point I'm making? GamerGaters are primarily arguing that this kind of politically correct sh!t is not welcome in the video game world. The media focuses on all the other issues, but if you actually read what the people involved are saying, that's their biggest gripe. They don't want entertainment judged on the basis of whether or not it fits a particular agenda.

This "politically correct ****" clearly is welcome in the video game world, considering the main sites that have taken the direction of viewing games as more than just shallow entertainment, are doing as well or better than they were before gamergate was a thing.

K-9

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

K-9's entire argument is based around the assumption that from the moment a child is born, it will bond more with the mother than with the father and be closer to the mother, and that the mother by default will decide where the child lives etc.&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /><br />
&amp;lt;br /&amp;gt;&lt;br /&gt;<br /><br />
It's an assumption as sexist as any other assumption made on the basis of gender, but it's so culturally ingrained that I suspect K-9 doesn't realise that either of us is suggesting changing it.

Quotes there patrick like a good chap
As somebody who was a main carer for my son, you're bull****ting yet agsin.

One eyed Jack

newport2 wrote: »

I'm not comparing anything. You made the statement: "You cannot bestow gender blind equal rights when both parties are intrinsically and biologically different." in relation to fathers not getting equal rights. I'm making the point that that is unreasonable and that it wouldn't hold up if you made it the other way around. You asked for an example, so I gave an example of where it would be unacceptable, not my opinion.

You didn't give an example of where it wouldn't hold up, you completely changed the context in which you were presenting the argument.

It's my assertion that the pursuit of "gender equality" is an utter nonsense, and that people should be given rights that are actually useful and beneficial to them, as opposed to "just because they have something I don't".

I can't give birth, I didn't have to put aside 9 months of my life (it was more like 30 seconds :pac:), and as I've always done, I regard a person's welfare as more important than their perceived entitlement to their rights. To that end, I would argue that a person's welfare should be the most important determining factor in what rights should be bestowed upon them, and balance their welfare and their rights with the welfare and rights of everyone else in society rather than charging blindly towards some "gender blind" gloopy soup society.

I would be in favour of equal paternity leave tbh, I would see it as a step towards equality. I also think it would be good for children and for society as a whole.

I too would be in favour of paternal leave (though tbh I'm not pushed either way), but not because it's equality just for the sake of it, but because as you point out - it has many benefits for children, for parents, for the family and as you say for society as a whole.

DarkyHughes

Samuel Scary Urination wrote: »

And here are the days where a woman can get a job over a man, simply because a company needs to hire a certain amount of female staff to give the impression they're not "sexist".

This is just nothing but far-right nonsense. It's gone from immigrants are stealing are jobs to women are stealing are jobs. What's next kittens & puppies stealing you're jobs?

tempotaschen

DarkyHughes wrote: »

This is just nothing but far-right nonsense. It's gone from immigrants are stealing are jobs to women are stealing are jobs. What's next kittens & puppies stealing you're jobs?

There's a war, I tell you - ACHOO!

magma69

Us white males are so oppressed!

One eyed Jack

DarkyHughes wrote: »

This is just nothing but far-right nonsense. It's gone from immigrants are stealing are jobs to women are stealing are jobs. What's next kittens & puppies stealing you're jobs?

Well, in fairness it was a sad day when they replaced the Andrex puppy with children talking about their arses being as clean as a washed potato. Nobody needs to know that! :pac:

NachoBusiness

A big part of why western society, in my view, has become and is becoming more and more misnadric and gynocentric by the hour is because of certain type of man. Men who are only too willing to be disparaging about their own gender if and when they feel there could be a pay off for them (there usually is). More often than not such men self identify as a male feminist. Every single time I read an article written by one of these male feminists I can't believe what I am reading. How does any man end up thinking so little of their own sex. Were they read Andrea Dworkin penned articles for bedtime stories as kids or something? Whatever is responsible for spawning these clowns, I hope it eventually recedes, for everyone's sanity.

The latest drivel dished up by one of these asshats:

"When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist."

c_man

magma69 wrote: »

Us white males are so oppressed!

Do people not realise how stupid the usage of this phrase sounds coming from non-Americans?

Yeah "white" males are all the same and have the life of Larry. Irish, Polish, Italian, Russian, what-ever. It's just the skin colour that matters eh?

DrFloppy

I don't believe the Western World is anti-male anymore than it's anti-female. The people of the Western World are, relatively, privileged.

But I utterly, utterly despise this horrid, toxic 3rd wave feminism doing the rounds at the moment.

When I hear the middle class Irish women that I grew up with talking about how angry they are about being oppressed, 'the patriarchy' and 'white heterosexual male privilege' I just want to drop kick them in the f**king face.

You're a white, middle class Irish woman who grew up in the 80's. Along with the white, middle class Irish men that you grew up with, you're lucky to be one of the most privileged, spoilt, pampered and entitled human beings on this earth. Rather than pi55ing and moaning about some fabricated oppression, show some f**king gratitude for the amazing life you've been fortunate enough to be gifted with and the opportunities that have come with it (Celtic Tiger, free 3rd level education, etc, etc).

If you're a middle class Irish woman and you're life is crap and you want to complain - don't blame men - blame yourself. It's probably your own fault. You spoilt f**king brat.

Right. I'm off to take my blood pressure medication. :mad:

frostyjacks

A fairly ridiculous man-hating article in the Guardian today, about a woman who lives under a self-imposed curfew because she knows "from experience that something bad might happen if I have to get home after midnight and the streets are full of potentially terrifying men who might not take it well if I don't want to stop and say hello." Basically every man is to be regarded as a potential rapist.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/20/sexual-harassment-women-curfew

She actually wants a police crackdown on flirting. How do silly little twits like this get paid for writing such tosh? And who buys this crap?

the evasion_kid

NachoBusiness wrote: »

A big part of why western society, in my view, has become and is becoming more and more misnadric and gynocentric by the hour is because of certain type of man. Men who are only too willing to be disparaging about their own gender if and when they feel there could be a pay off for them (there usually is). More often than not such men self identify as a male feminist. Every single time I read an article written by one of these male feminists I can't believe what I am reading. How does any man end up thinking so little of their own sex. Were they read Andrea Dworkin penned articles for bedtime stories as kids or something? Whatever is responsible for spawning these clowns, I hope it eventually recedes, for everyone's sanity.

The latest drivel dished up by one of these asshats:

Might as well bang up the whole article nacho:

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

Edit:Oops didn't see your link

tempotaschen

NachoBusiness wrote: »

How does any man end up thinking so little of their own sex.

Internet porn and size - the trump card. However, there's a sting in that tail/tale that radical feminists have either not envisaged or have chosen to ignore for short-term gains - there will be a backlash, that is, if history has taught us anything.