Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

1173174176178179339

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Maguined wrote: »
    Many posters to the thread had brought up the fact that depending upon what state he was living in even if they had a paternity test performed he would still be responsible for the child if the child is born into a marriage so if he did not want to raise the child if she chose to keep it he would have to initiate separation before birth so he would not be responsible to support the child that is not his.

    As far as I could see there weren't many posters, there were only a few and they couldn't back up their claim. It's true that in a marriage the husband is the presumed father, but if he can establish he isn't then he is not responsible.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,475 ✭✭✭Elliott S


    NI24 wrote: »
    Perhaps but perhaps not. If he was abused as he says he was then surely there were friends or family who knew about it or a record of cops being called to the house (regardless of charges being filed) or a history of violence on her part or other boyfriends coming forward and telling their story.

    Look at the Cosby case. As much as I can remember, he wasn't convicted prior to the scandal that broke a while ago, but there were records of women accusing him, and several witnesses have come forward since then claiming that everybody knew about his misdeeds (doesn't say much about everybody, but whatever).

    Yes, there can be evidence gathered on someone. But it's worrying how people use the Savile defence to disregard the whole idea of innocence until proven guilty. And it's not really about gender. Since the Savile scandal, other men have been investigated by the Beeb and their names realised to the public. They have subsequently been released from investigation. It's not right that their names were released when no charges were made. And a Coronation Street actor lost his job over allegations that he was later found innocent of. And Caroline Aherne's name also shouldn't be dragged through the mud unless compelling evidence emerges.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,247 ✭✭✭Maguined


    NI24 wrote: »
    As far as I could see there weren't many posters, there were only a few and they couldn't back up their claim. It's true that in a marriage the husband is the presumed father, but if he can establish he isn't then he is not responsible.

    It was an advice thread so posters were offering their advice the husband should look into this as a potential issue, they are not backing up their claims as it is not an adversarial debate but merely offering advice so no one was challenging them to back up their claim.

    It depends on the state for example in Florida you could still end up liable if you did not contest within a year time limit.

    http://clementlaw.com/child-support/non-biological-father-liable-for-child-support/
    . . . .through a DNA test 16 months after his divorce, Richard Parker learned that someone else had fathered the 3-year-old boy. Facing court-ordered child-support payments of $1,200 a month for 15 years, he immediately turned to the courts, claiming fraud by his wife. His case took him all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, which issued its decision in February in Parker v. Parker. Williams tells what happened:

    "The Florida justices ruled 7-0 against Richard Parker. The Court ruled Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support. Parker's child support payments will total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child. Unfortunately, however, Florida has a one-year statute of limitations to prove fraud after a divorce, and Parker didn't file in time."

    Pointing this out to the husband on the Reddit thread was just advice and looking at this Florida case it is very good advice the husband needs to consider in any decision he makes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,878 ✭✭✭gizmo555


    Maguined wrote: »
    It depends on the state for example in Florida you could still end up liable if you did not contest within a year time limit

    Notoriously, in Kansas you could end up liable even if you're a 13 year old child who's a victim of statutory rape:

    The court stated that the state's interest in ensuring that a minor receives child support outweighed its interest in potentially deterring sexual crimes against minors.


    I have a hard time believing the court would have made a female child who became pregnant as a result of rape liable for the support of the child.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    No
    gizmo555 wrote: »
    I have a hard time believing the court would have made a female child who became pregnant as a result of rape liable for the support of the child.

    In that case presumably she could have an abortion or had the child adopted. It seems more difficult for a guy to legally opt out of parental responsibilities.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,469 ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    psinno wrote: »
    In that case presumably she could have an abortion or had the child adopted. It seems more difficult for a guy to legally opt out of parental responsibilities.

    I would have thought adoption in this case would be the best idea rather than leaving a baby with a known sexual predator. Would a male rapist be given access to the offspring in similar circumstances?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,722 ✭✭✭Iseedeadpixels


    The cynic in me would think that there's always going to be one person less happy with that arrangement than the other but they make a pragmatic decision to go along with it. Great if you can make it work but I think an open relationship like that is going to end up being corrosive.

    I think it's the justification that he's happy with it purely because he's a feminist that makes the whole thing slightly pathetic.

    Oh 100% agreed I think she gets more of a kick out of it than him but I could never see him or even her talk about feminism like that. I have a personal hatred for male feminists....they should be castrated.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Sweeping generalization here but I think in a male/female open relationship the woman will nearly always be getting more sex out of it if she wants than the man.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,722 ✭✭✭Iseedeadpixels


    Sweeping generalization here but I think in a male/female open relationship the woman will nearly always be getting more sex out of it if she wants than the man.

    Simply because its easier for Women to get a partner and most men wouldnt bat a eyelid if she had a partner already.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Simply because its easier for Women to get a partner and most men wouldnt bat a eyelid if she had a partner already.

    Yup, pretty much.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,469 ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Oh 100% agreed I think she gets more of a kick out of it than him but I could never see him or even her talk about feminism like that. I have a personal hatred for male feminists....they should be castrated.

    Mod note - less of that please


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    gizmo555 wrote: »

    I have a hard time believing the court would have made a female child who became pregnant as a result of rape liable for the support of the child.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer

    No, they'll just make that female child (also known as a girl) carry that child inside her for nine months against her will.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 641 ✭✭✭NI24


    Elliott S wrote: »
    But it's worrying how people use the Savile defence to disregard the whole idea of innocence until proven guilty. And it's not really about gender.

    In all honesty the only people I've seen disregarding Aherne's innocence are the posters in this thread who posted the link and thanked it and the commenters in the posted link. Compared to the presumed guilt of the men you mentioned and men like Cosby I'd say this woman is getting off pretty easy. There will always be people who presume guilt, it's just the nature of society.


  • Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    NI24 wrote: »
    No, they'll just make that female child (also known as a girl) carry that child inside her for nine months against her will.
    In Kansas?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    maybe
    NI24 wrote: »
    In all honesty the only people I've seen disregarding Aherne's innocence are the posters in this thread who posted the link and thanked it and the commenters in the posted link. Compared to the presumed guilt of the men you mentioned and men like Cosby I'd say this woman is getting off pretty easy. There will always be people who presume guilt, it's just the nature of society.

    I posted that link. Tell me where I disregarded Aherne's innocence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Catholic schools, all is forgiven :D

    Curl8A5WEAAzShe.jpg

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,310 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    This article goes a bit further into the background: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/education/lessons-on-male-privilege-in-218m-victorian-schools-program/news-story/acea77bcd12cd6c3885c97b2be9fca47
    Victorian students will be taught about “male privilege” and how “masculinity” encourages “control and dominance” over women, as part of a mandatory new school subject aimed at combating family violence.

    The Victorian government will push ahead with the rollout of its $21.8 million respectful relationships education program, despite claims the program fails to consider the multiple and complex drivers of family violence, ignores male victims and amounts to the brainwashing of children.

    Evidence has emerged the program risks alienating men — by presenting all men as “bad” and all women as “victims” — a point highlighted in a report evaluating a pilot of the program in 19 schools last year.

    As part of its broader campaign against family violence, the Andrews government has released a series of new resources aimed at kindergarten through to Year 12 classes designed to complement a “whole-of-school” approach to violence prevention.

    The Resilience, Rights and Respectful Relationships learning materials aim to encourage gender equity in relationships and challenge gender stereotypes, which are key drivers of ­violence against women, it is claimed.

    While the program refers to “gender-based violence”, the overriding emphasis is on men being the perpetrators of violent acts. Proposed lessons will introduce students to the concept of “privilege”, which is described as “automatic, unearned benefits bestowed upon dominant groups” based on “gender, ­sexuality, race or socio-economic class”.

    “Being born a male, you have advantages — such as being overly represented in the public sphere — and this will be true whether you personally approve or think you are entitled to this privilege,” states guidance for the Years 7 and 8 curriculum,” it says.

    By Years 11 and 12, students are asked to examine their privilege and ways that “equity” can be encouraged, such as catch-up programs, special benefits or entitlements for those who are not considered privileged.

    “An awareness of the existence of male privilege is critical in understanding why there is a need for feminist perspectives, and education on gender at all,” the curriculum guide points out.

    It also introduces students to the term “hegemonic masculinity”, which is defined as the dominant form of masculinity in society that “requires boys and men to be heterosexual, tough, athletic and emotionless, and ­encourages the control and dominance of men over women”.

    Jeremy Sammut, a senior ­research fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies, criticised the program, calling it ­“taxpayer-funded indoctrination” of children.

    “The idea behind this program — that all men are latent abusers by nature of the ‘discourse’ — is an idea that only cloistered feminist academics could love,” Dr Sammut told The Australian. “A lot of evidence suggests that like child abuse, domestic ­violence is a byproduct of social dysfunction: welfare, drugs, family breakdown.”

    Kevin ­Donnelly, a senior research fellow at the Australian Catholic University, said the program was biased and lacked objectivity and balance.

    “There’s no doubt that women are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence and more needs to be done,” Dr Donnelly said.

    “The royal commission found that 25 per cent of victims of family violence are men and there’s little, if anything, in there that acknowledges the impact of violence on men and young boys.”

    Hannah Grant, a spokeswoman for Our Watch, which ­man­aged the pilot and carried out the evaluation, acknowledged there had been tension in some schools and statistics demonstrating the gendered nature of violence often prompted challenging ­discussion.

    “Feedback suggested that the whole-school briefing had a varied impact within and across schools,” she said.

    Education Minister James Merino dismissed concerns over the program.

    “We will not stand by while one woman in Australia is killed every week through domestic violence,” Mr Merlino said.

    “It’s ­astounding anyone could think teaching our kids about respect for other people is a bad thing.”
    A waste of taxpayers money is right.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,571 ✭✭✭daithi7


    Worse than a waste of taxpayer's money, more like a blatant abuse of the money. Can policy makers not see the damage that a poorly designed programme like this can do!?

    I hate seeing things being treated in isolation, if they are trying to inform kids to prevent abuse, they should of course tackle the whole gambit of abuse e.g. physical, emotional, verbal, psychological , substance, self abuse, etc, etc, and they should of course do it in a completely non sexist way, now that might be worthy of tax payers money, kids & teachers time and actually achieve some decent objectives.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    I hadnt read the article, all this cultural marxism is toxic and is just leftist bullsh1t

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Letree


    If parents in Victoria do not agree with this program then they should boycott the lesson. Tell the headmaster their sons (and daughters) will not be subjected to such one sided indoctrination.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,005 ✭✭✭Letree


    I don't understand how the program can be set up as it is. Why can't the issue of domestic violence against men be included. Were there any men involved in the program set up. If not why not. Surely there are stats out there and they should be basing the lesson on facts.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,310 Mod ✭✭✭✭mzungu


    Letree wrote: »
    I don't understand how the program can be set up as it is. Why can't the issue of domestic violence against men be included. Were there any men involved in the program set up. If not why not. Surely there are stats out there and they should be basing the lesson on facts.

    What's concerning here is, the subject has already been dismissed as being a waste of time and a failure when it was piloted. Yet, it seems to be going full steam ahead. Who exactly is behind shoehorning this in, against all the evidence to the contrary?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    new word for today Manteruppting
    The Safest Space ‏@TheSafestSpace · 1h1 hour ago

    Slide from a University lecture. How does point 5 not violate point 4?

    (via InterVaginalAircraft) @sjw_nonsense


    Cu-RhjpXgAEqKuP.jpg:medium

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    maybe
    When I saw two dogs stuck together after doing it I said 'Ewww, that's gross!' but now after reading point 6, I realise that I was shaming them. Hell, I was probably manteruppting them! I'm so ashamed of my shaming…


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    No
    I worry for a person who can write 4 and then write 5. Even more so since interrupting someone isn't a type of shaming.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    No


    Someone seriously said "I’ve been seeing a guy for 5 months and he’s starting to suggest that I contribute to the cost of dinner when we go out!"

    I wouldn't mind getting some of that privilege.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,845 ✭✭✭py2006


    psinno wrote: »
    Someone seriously said "I’ve been seeing a guy for 5 months and he’s starting to suggest that I contribute to the cost of dinner when we go out!"

    I wouldn't mind getting some of that privilege.

    She aint alone!

    His point on the 'gesturing' to pay is a difficult one for me. I've known girls that told me that they will gesture towards paying but have no intention of. It just a way of avoiding the awkward and inevitably he will go, "no, no I got this".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭Carlos Orange


    No
    py2006 wrote: »
    She aint alone!

    I would have thought that after 5 months things might equal up a little......


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,845 ✭✭✭py2006


    psinno wrote: »
    I would have thought that after 5 months things might equal up a little......

    Yea, 5 months is a bit ridiculous. The alarms bells should ring long before that.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 531 ✭✭✭midnight city


    So men are not to explain anything (mansplaining) to a woman or to interrupt (manterrupt) a woman now. Wasn't that exactly what women faced about 100 years ago. Now they want to put men in the same position. Its all very misandrist. Where is this going.


Advertisement