A Womans Place - The search for Equality.

dudara

Vangelis wrote:

Sorry, just have to go off-topic here. Wow, that's cool! A female engineer/physicist? Raw! Go girl!! :cool:

Hey, just to balance it out, I also cook and crochet!

My point is that a person's abilities should determine what they can and cannot do, not their gender. I was raised working for my dad in his garage, stripping engines and the like, and while I'm not a fan of such work, it did make me feel that I could choose to do anything, as long as i wasn't inept at it.

Vangelis

dudara wrote:

Hey, just to balance it out, I also cook and crochet!

My point is that a person's abilities should determine what they can and cannot do, not their gender. I was raised working for my dad in his garage, stripping engines and the like, and while I'm not a fan of such work, it did make me feel that I could choose to do anything, as long as i wasn't inept at it.

Oh well, you're lucky to have been endowed with the aptitude for maths. I'm not, but still.. it would be fun to work in an atom lab!

PS I can't cook either. But I have many other talents.

fly_agaric

savoyard wrote:

Pregnancy does not last for life - women generally take 6 months maternity leave and go back to work. Biology dicates we have children, but employers penalise us for having them. There are generally two people who have children: a man and a women. Why does the burden fall to the woman only? The long hours culture also contributes to this. As I said, it's changing: due in a large part to fathers who take equal part in caring for children...

As more women earn more that their partners, the decision on who is going to be the primary carer of children is based more on economics than gender. It's only recently that men have felt able to do this, and my personal belief is that as more and more men know they can play a full role in taking care of their children, more and more family friendly policies will be introduced into the workplace, making it easier for both men and women to balance worklife and childrearing.

Unfortunately, if society changes in the way you want, men will probably expect more say in the rearing of said children - for example when there is a separation/divorce.:eek:

A side effect (something that will happen also because of the widening education gap between the upcoming generations of men and women) is that women will find it harder and harder to get a man with an as good or a better paying job than them. They may have to settle for a house-hubby who will be more connected to "their" children than they are. What about paying him maintenace to look after "your" (I bore them goddamn you!) children in the event of a divorce!:eek:

Will many women be happy about this - somehow I think not. (edit: they may dislike the situation enough to ditch the whole shacking up with men malarky and the one-parent family will become the default way to have children).
Be very careful what you wish for from Santy. Mind the laws of unintended consequences occuring as a result of some of our genetic hardwiring that people find it hard to override.

savoyard wrote:

Rubbish. Feminism believes that the sexes should be equal socially, politically and economically. That's the overall aim of feminism - it's not about making women better, its about equal opportunities and outcomes. Of course there are some separatist feminists out there - but mainstream feminism has always been about equality for all.

LOL.
No - feminism is about the elimination of areas where women suffer discrimination. An eminently practical goal.
Not about making some happy, happy kumbaya land where all are equal socially, politically and economically.

savoyard wrote:

(about women being underpaid) I don't care if you believe it or not - enough people that matter do

Do you work for the Equality Authority???...:):) If you do (or even if you don't), please give a quick one sentence opinion/answer on what you think about wasting taxpayers money on endless cases to make sure rich and pampered business women can join a bloody men-only golf club!

U$ername

dudara wrote:

My point is that a person's abilities should determine what they can and cannot do, not their gender.

Such as whether you should let 17 year old Mary or 17 year old John from next door babysit your children. Im all for equality and I agree that gender should be unimportant. But is it that society percieves one sex as being better than the other at certain tasks or is it true that one sex is better at those tasks.

As the lines between traditional male/female roles get more and more blurred is it worthwhile mentioning that for thousands of years people have been evolving to suit their roles in a family. Men have been bigger and stronger in order to hunt etc. and women more sensitive and caring in order to care for children. Luckily for us evolution doesnt stop (except for Creationists) and we may evolve into a more asexual race. The reality is that there are less and less jobs which are sole duties of either sex but they are there nonetheless.

Zombrex

the_syco wrote:

you'll see why there is so little intrest, as the sexist attitude is that men shouldn't care about their health.

I know, that is the frustrating and worrying part.

But it isn't women who re-enforce this stereotype, its other men. The point is it has nothing to do with discrimination or feminist issues, and everything to do with the way men view other men and themselves. And if men can't convince other men to break down that stereotype, then we have a problem, a serious one. And you are right it isn't just cancer, but all areas of male health.

Eoin

fly_agaric wrote:

Unfortunately, if society changes in the way you want, men will probably expect more say in the rearing of said children - for example when there is a separation/divorce.:eek:

So, men should not get equal rights when it comes to children?

fly_agaric wrote:

They may have to settle for a house-hubby who will be more connected to "their" children than they are. What about paying him maintenace to look after "your" (I bore them goddamn you!) children in the event of a divorce!:eek:

"their" children? get rid of the quotes, and get over yourself. They are very much "his" child as it is yours. This attitude absolutely sickens me, who are you to say that the father should not expect the same rights to his children as the mother?

bonkey

dudara wrote:

All that matters is a person's ability to do the job

Yes, but this isn't a simple issue.

Two people, equally qualified.

Both qualified 5 years ago, and have worked since then. They have comparable proven ability, comparable strengths and weaknesses. In short, they're pretty much inseperable as candidates....

...except that within that 5 years, one of the two has been absent from work for a period of approximately 6 months.

Who do you hire, and why?

Please note, I have not hinted at the gender of either worker, nor at the reason for the absence of one. I'm just saying that this absence is the only determinable distinction. Am I allowed take this distinction into account as a difference in ability to do the job (i.e. one worker has slightly more experience than the other)?

jc

Dades

eoin_s wrote:

This attitude absolutely sickens me, who are you to say that the father should not expect the same rights to his children as the mother?

It could be me but I think you're missing the tone of fly's post.

I though the point was that the biased rights towards mothers regarding custody, maintenance of children etc., would need to be addressed if society developed into and equal system of men/women - childcare vs career.

A good point too.

Eoin

The Atheist wrote:

It could be me but I think you're missing the tone of fly's post.

I though the point was that the biased rights towards mothers regarding custody, maintenance of children etc., would need to be addressed if society developed into and equal system of men/women - childcare vs career.

A good point too.

I really hope so, and I apologise to fly_agaric if that is the case, but re-reading the post, I can't really figure it out.

Zombrex

On the topic of custody, anyone see the ITN report on Fathers 4 Justice last night ... very scary stuff, seems that F4J leadership is made up of violent angry men thugs (and a few armed robbers).

One interesting part of the program was a discussion with the head of CAFCASS, the UK agency responsible for recommendations to the judges of the best course of action for the child in the case of custody hearings. He said that of the 30,000 or so cases they deal with each year, only 0.8% result in a father having no visitation rights at all, and nearly all of these are a result of violent behaviour on the part of the father to either the child or the mother. After seeing the hidden camera interviews with the higher up members of F4J where they talk about threatening to kill their ex-wives, or boasting about violence towards them and their new partners (One guy said he got his wife to agree to let him see his kid by threating to kill her if she didn't), you have to wonder if this group is actually representing real grievences or is just a platform for angry aggressive pepole to vent.

The under cover reporter said that he did met men at F4J meetings with genuine grievence against the system, but he said these were greatly overshadowed by the violence and anger put forward by the group as a whole, espeically its leaders.

I know this is getting a bit off topic, but does anyone have actually statistics that relate to this "bias" in the court system. I mean, everyone seems to think it exists (and I am certainly not saying it doesn't) but finding hard facts and statistics in between the wealth of hear-say type reports (from groups like F4J) makes it very difficult to see what is actually happening in relation to child custody. I know from friends who are child social workers that the letter of the law in Ireland states nothing about bias towards the mother, only that the best interests of the child must be aheard to.

Eoin

Wicknight wrote:

I know this is getting a bit off topic, but does anyone have actually statistics that relate to this "bias" in the court system. I mean, everyone seems to think it exists (and I am certainly not saying it doesn't) but finding hard facts and statistics in between the wealth of hear-say type reports (from groups like F4J) makes it very difficult to see what is actually happening in relation to child custody. I know from friends who are child social workers that the letter of the law in Ireland states nothing about bias towards the mother, only that the best interests of the child must be aheard to.

I don't know any statistics whatsoever, so this is based on my impressions. The letter of the law there seems very vague, and one could argue that many judges will automatically assume that the child's best interested are being adhered to by leaving the child with the mother. From what I can tell (again, no statistics), it seems that the mother is the default choice.

Zombrex

eoin_s wrote:

one could argue that many judges will automatically assume that the child's best interested are being adhered to by leaving the child with the mother

As far as I know, like in the UK, the judge is given a recommendation from the social workers assessing the case as to the condition of each parent to raise a child, and my understanding is that the judge almost always follows the recommendations of the social work department (I could be wrong, this is just what I took from talking to social workers). So this bias isn't based solely on the judge's assumptions.

eoin_s wrote:

From what I can tell (again, no statistics), it seems that the mother is the default choice.

But where is that view (the view that so many people have) coming from? Most people I would imagine are not involved in many custody disputes, yet this view still seems to form.

Eoin

Wicknight wrote:

As far as I know, like in the UK, the judge is given a recommendation from the social workers assessing the case as to the condition of each parent to raise a child, and my understanding is that the judge almost always follows the recommendations of the social work department (I could be wrong, this is just what I took from talking to social workers). So this bias isn't based solely on the judge's assumptions.

But again, the bias from the social worker may automatically lean towards the mother.

Wicknight wrote:

But where is that view (the view that so many people have) coming from? Most people I would imagine are not involved in many custody disputes, yet this view still seems to form.

This is a very good question. I know that Bob Geldoff did a program on this in the UK and it was very critical of the rights, or lack thereof, that the father got. However, this could have been the spin he wanted to put on from the start.

In any situations I know personally, the mother has been awarded custody but I don't know if that has been by mutual agreement or not.

Are the protesters who dress up as batman etc and climb public buldings in England also Fathers for Justice? They seem to come across quite well, and seem to have a lot of support - but if that is just the public face hiding a load of thugs who shouldn't be near their children, then I am quite disappointed.

The Sweeper

Maternity and Paterntiy leave isn't all it's cracked up to be. Paternity leave is not recognised in employment law in Ireland. Unless you company has a specific clause allowing you leave, they don't actually have to let the father of a new baby take time off. Generally you may find many men take annual leave after the birth of a new baby.

What men CAN do is take parental leave. Parental leave is granted normally to parents of children under the age of 5 years old (older in the case of adopted children) and is allocated on the basis of 14 weeks per child.

During this time you are not entitled to pay from your employer or any social welfare benefit like maternity benefit or adoptive benefit.

So basically, men get shafted. They can't take six months off to spend with their new baby even if they want to, unless they can afford to do it at their own expense. So their partner ends up taking a career break to have a child, which then damages her career prospects in the eyes of many employers. Additionally, at the moment there is rising evidence in the UK (dunno if this extends to Ireland) that women who have not made independent career-related pension provision will be in serious trouble at pensionable age. This is because they haven't worked enough to cover the level of contributions they need for a state pension. Basically that boils down to pensionable men getting more pension money than pensionable women.

There is a bigger cultural and economic problem revolving around parental leave these days though - mainly that we now have lifestyles that aren't supportable though single-income families. You physically cannot buy a property on one person's salary. And the home workload? I don't understand how anyone can hold down a fulltime job and still cook and clean for three or four - or more! - people as well.

The higher the cost of living gets, the further away equality will be for women. Because now, to be equal, you have to be able to do everything a man does and everything a woman does too.

The requirement for equality is a false set of demands and doesn't reflect equality at all. For equality in the workplace, you have to be just as available as a man, just as talented and have no intentions of having a child so you never have to take maternity leave. But to have equality amongst women as a desirable partner, you need to be open to the concept of a traditional family. You also need to be embracing your new-found independence in order to be equal to men, and not expect other people to do anything for you. You can't rely on support from the government, your employer or your partner, and if you go looking for it you may well be told that you've been shouting about wanting to do it all for yourself for long enough, now get on with it.

It's chaotic, unbalanced and shows no signs of relief. These days, if you're a woman, the only person who's really going to look after you is yourself.

Deep joy.

Zombrex

eoin_s wrote:

I know that Bob Geldoff did a program on this in the UK and it was very critical of the rights, or lack thereof, that the father got. However, this could have been the spin he wanted to put on from the start.

Yeah I'm sorry I missed that when it aired. I can certainly see where he is coming from, awarding custody to a drug fueled Yeats and her partner (whats his face from INXS) was not a very good idea. But because I didn't see it I don't know the details.

eoin_s wrote:

Are the protesters who dress up as batman etc and climb public buldings in England also Fathers for Justice? They seem to come across quite well, and seem to have a lot of support - but if that is just the public face hiding a load of thugs who shouldn't be near their children, then I am quite disappointed.

Yeah that is them ... the have pulled a number of stunts over the years, from small things like clueing the doors of social worker offices closed, to storming public buildings and conferences. Personally I think they risk doing their cause more harm than good as they seem to be getting more and more militant

Dades

eoin_s wrote:

From what I can tell (again, no statistics), it seems that the mother is the default choice.

Again, it's hard to tell without stats, but i would imagine this is the case.

But this might just be the case because more women are the primary care-givers in a relationship, whereas the man is statistically the primary provider. In this situation it would be radical for a judge to tell the mother to go back to work full time and support the father who would now look after the child. Perhaps it is as cyclical as this.

Maybe thats karma given the "discrimination" women of child-bearing age see in the job market.

Interesting about the F4J. I'd hate to think their cause is misrepresented by thugs.

Vangelis

the syco, I have never heard that men shouldn't care for their health! That's new to me. Where I live, men use body lotions, get pedicures(sp?) and manicures(sp?), they exercise, wash their hands when they've been to the toilet. They take care of themselves in other words. Am I off the track now?

simu

Vangelis wrote:

the syco, I have never heard that men shouldn't care for their health! That's new to me. Where I live, men use body lotions, get pedicures(sp?) and manicures(sp?), they exercise, wash their hands when they've been to the toilet. They take care of themselves in other words. Am I off the track now?

Not in Ireland, are you? :v:

Vangelis

simu wrote:

Not in Ireland, are you? :v:

Obviously not. So what's the deal? Don't Irish men wash their bums and put lotion on their sweet noses to keep them soft and plushy?

simu

Eh... I'll let the Irish guys on the forum answer that!

Eoin

Vangelis wrote:

the syco, I have never heard that men shouldn't care for their health! That's new to me. Where I live, men use body lotions, get pedicures(sp?) and manicures(sp?), they exercise, wash their hands when they've been to the toilet. They take care of themselves in other words. Am I off the track now?

um, I think you have covered a range of things from basic hygiene to primping. IMO there is absolutely no need for men to get their nails done, but this does not mean I don't look after my health.

I think the point being made was that men (traditionally) don't seem to be as particular about their health as women and can be blase about it to a point. I would think that a woman is far more likely to get something checked out by a doctor than a man if they think something the matter.

Zombrex

A lot of Irish men see issues about health as

a - A sign of weakness, especially serious illness. Its a bit of I can't be sick, I have a buiness to run, that kinda thing. Those stupid If-you-take-a-sick-day-you-will-be-fired Lemsip adds don't help :rolleyes:. But it is also the idea that someone else has to care for you, be that a nurse, a wife or a mother, that you can't manage on your own.

b - A signal of their own mortality, or more specifically lack of immortality. We Irish are great for the "if we don't deal with it it isn't really happening". My grandfather went years with diabetas until he finally went to a doctor. A year later he lost his leg. A few years later he was dead. He simply didn't want to face up to a serious health problem and choose to ignore it.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

A lot of Irish men see issues about health as

a - A sign of weakness, especially serious illness. Its a bit of I can't be sick, I have a buiness to run, that kinda thing. Those stupid If-you-take-a-sick-day-you-will-be-fired Lemsip adds don't help :rolleyes:. But it is also the idea that someone else has to care for you, be that a nurse, a wife or a mother, that you can't manage on your own.

b - A signal of their own mortality, or more specifically lack of immortality. We Irish are great for the "if we don't deal with it it isn't really happening". My grandfather went years with diabetas until he finally went to a doctor. A year later he lost his leg. A few years later he was dead. He simply didn't want to face up to a serious health problem and choose to ignore it.

So there is really something in it when Englishmen call something for "Irish!", meaning that something is absurd or silly.

Well, that life philosophy if I may call it that, does not suit my Irish boyfriend. He loves when I baby him and take care of him.

Since you describe these symptoms so well, it seems like a deep-rooted thing. I like that a man cares for his health and well-being. It's sexy! Make that a new commercial in Ireland, will you?

"Take a pill! It makes the woman's heart pounding!"

Sorry to hear it went so wrong with your dad, Wicknight. Speaking of diabetes, my dad has it. He went to the doctor faster than the train. Thanks to that he can live a long, healthy life.

Ireland needs a wake-up call..

Eoin

Vangelis wrote:

So there is really something in it when Englishmen call something for "Irish!", meaning that something is absurd or silly.

Well, that is racism, unless we Irish say it

Vangelis wrote:

Sorry to hear it went so wrong with your dad, eoin. Speaking of diabetes, my dad has it.

That's very good of you. But it wasn't my dad, it was Wicknight's grandfather!

simu

Not all Irish guys are like that - it's more prevalent amongst older men and the uneducated. The same phenomenon has also been observed in other countries.

Thanks for the State of the Nation address, though.:v:

Eoin

simu wrote:

Not all Irish guys are like that - it's more prevalent amongst older men and the uneducated. The same phenomenon has also been observed in other countries.

Thanks for the State of the Nation address, though.:v:

Yeah, I think things have definitely changed - especially with regards to testicular cancer, men (especially younger men) seem to have finally copped on that you need to see a doc as soon as you think something is wrong.

By the way, what does the pacman smiley mean? The other ones make sense to me, but I just can't figure out what the pacman one is supposed to convey.

Vangelis

Sorry, eoin, I corrected it.

Did you guys like that "Take a pill! It makes the woman's heart pounding!" ?

simu, what age group do you mean by older men? I haven't met my boyfriend's dad yet you see. I hope not to anticipate an ill-smelling shrimp with foot-warts??? :eek:

simu

Vangelis wrote:

simu, what age group do you mean by older men? I haven't met my boyfriend's dad yet you see. I hope not to anticipate an ill-smelling shrimp with foot-warts??? :eek:

This forum isn't here to facilitate your meeting with your future father-in-law tbh. Are you trolling or what?

Vangelis

simu wrote:

This forum isn't here to facilitate your meeting with your future father-in-law tbh. Are you trolling or what?

Hoohoo!! That gave me a good laugh. I'm just trying to estimate the possibly dreadful prospect of my future family-relationship to my father-in-law. And intentionally to make people laugh a bit.

fly_agaric

The Atheist wrote:

It could be me but I think you're missing the tone of fly's post.

I though the point was that the biased rights towards mothers regarding custody, maintenance of children etc., would need to be addressed if society developed into and equal system of men/women - childcare vs career.

A good point too.

Pretty much. I don't think men are hard done by as things stand - I mean anecdotally we hear of cases where if the woman is very píssed off, she can use the system to put roadblocks in the way, but I'd doubt this happens in most separations/divorces.

It's if society changes far enough the way savoyard wants (men spending much more time with their children, picking up the slack at home, with women freer to concentrate on the rat race if they want to) - men will begin to look for more rights in this domestic area. I mean "ordinary men" (not just the current few Fathers 4 Justice type monomaniacs who can be written off as crackers quite easily) will be looking for the whole system of assuming the woman is the primary caregiver to the children to be changed.

Can you see mothers being happy with that? I'd say feminists will fight it tooth and nail. It is a zero sum game and they know that.

As for some of my more radical ideas on the possible consequences of more equality in the roles men and women in work and at home (women finding it harder to get the "right" man, more-one parent families, woman + 1 child (sex-selected girl maybe??:D:D ) - just idle speculation.
Hope that explains my thoughts a bit better.