Discrimination against Men

iptba · 21-03-2010 05:40PM

james finn wrote: »

That was a long time ago, im not ere to bash womens rights, im ere to say we should warn young boys in school they dont have any rights to their kids unmarried. why would telling the truth be a problem

Yes, that could be thought in history. What happens now should be more relevant than (or at least as relevant as) what happened 30+ years ago.

james finn · 21-03-2010 05:42PM

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

what makes you say that?

Its just so weird its not being thought in schools as it would teach boys whats ahead cause i didnt know i had no rights till after my child was born.

metrovelvet · 21-03-2010 05:48PM

james finn wrote: »

Its just so weird its not being thought in schools as it would teach boys whats ahead cause i didnt know i had no rights till after my child was born.

Your situation is particularly bad but again I would say this has a lot to do with the status of marriage, after all her husband has rights over your child.

sam34 · 21-03-2010 05:49PM

i suppose its out of the question to expect that people who deem themselves mature and responsible enough to have sex would take the responsible decision to educate themselves about the potential consequences and the implications and repercussions of those, before they have sex, instead of expecting someone else to do it for them?

james finn · 21-03-2010 05:54PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Your situation is particularly bad but again I would say this has a lot to do with the status of marriage, after all her husband has rights over your child.

Thats over as of last week from what i heard, labour have a new bill on fathers rights which is good, i got my rights in the courts

james finn · 21-03-2010 05:56PM

sam34 wrote: »

i suppose its out of the question to expect that people who deem themselves mature and responsible enough to have sex would take the responsible decision to educate themselves about the potential consequences and the implications and repercussions of those, before they have sex, instead of expecting someone else to do it for them?

SO we shouldnt teach kids safe sex or should we let them figure it out.

sam34 · 21-03-2010 06:04PM

james finn wrote: »

SO we shouldnt teach kids safe sex or should we let them figure it out.

no, thats not what i said.

i think that when it comes to sex, which can lead to something life-altering, each person should have some personal responsibility to know what could happen and what that means for them.

absolving oneself of personal responsibility is ridiculous, imo.

people can look stuff up in books, on the net, in doctors surgeries, well woman/well man clinics etc etc etc

"it wasnt taught in school" /"its the fault of the governments /schools /churches /parents /neighbours /anybody other than me" doesnt cut it in this day and age, with so much available information, as a reason not to find out about something so life-altering

james finn · 21-03-2010 06:07PM

sam34 wrote: »

no, thats not what i said.

i think that when it comes to sex, which can lead to something life-altering, each person should have some personal responsibility to know what could happen and what that means for them.

absolving oneself of personal responsibility is ridiculous, imo.

people can look stuff up in books, on the net, in doctors surgeries, well woman/well man clinics etc etc etc

"it wasnt taught in school" /"its the fault of the governments /schools /churches /parents /neighbours /anybody other than me" doesnt cut it in this day and age, with so much available information, as a reason not to find out about something so life-altering

So we shouldnt teach kids the truth that they will have no rights and you are saying we shouldnt teach kids about sex, your saying they can look it up online?????

sam34 · 21-03-2010 06:15PM

james finn wrote: »

So we shouldnt teach kids the truth that they will have no rights and you are saying we shouldnt teach kids about sex, your saying they can look it up online?????

no, i never said we shouldnt teach kids about sex or about legal rights :rolleyes:

please dont put words into my mouth again, thats the second time you've done it

i am saying - again - that each individual has to accept personal responsibility for their own actions - its not always someone else's fault

people are very quick to lay blame at the door of the government/school/"society"/whoever, and blithly absolve themselves of responsibility

thats ridiculous, imo

given the wealth of information thats so readily accessible now, there is no excuse for not having the info, even if one source didnt provide it - there are other sources

people wouldnt - i hope, and presume - make life-changing decisions like getting a mortgage, pursuing a particular career path, moving country, without researching the potential benefits AND pitfalls of such a decision - why should sex be any different?

metrovelvet · 21-03-2010 06:19PM

sam34 wrote: »

no, i never said we shouldnt teach kids about sex or about legal rights :rolleyes:

please dont put words into my mouth again, thats the second time you've done it

i am saying - again - that each individual has to accept personal responsibility for their own actions - its not always someone else's fault

people are very quick to lay blame at the door of the government/school/"society"/whoever, and blithly absolve themselves of responsibility

thats ridiculous, imo

given the wealth of information thats so readily accessible now, there is no excuse for not having the info, even if one source didnt provide it - there are other sources

people wouldnt - i hope, and presume - make life-changing decisions like getting a mortgage, pursuing a particular career path, moving country, without researching the potential benefits AND pitfalls of such a decision - why should sex be any different?

While I agree with you on principal I think in reality this can be a bit ambitious.

Our sex ed in the US started at 12. There's a lot you dont know at 12. And there is also a lot people get up to at 12. You would be surpised.

A lecturer in sociology at one of the ITs in this country [ireland]told me that at present [this was about 5 years ago] one in five babies are born to mothers whose breasts arent developed enough to breastfeed.

james finn · 21-03-2010 06:26PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

While I agree with you on principal I think in reality this can be a bit ambitious.

Our sex ed in the US started at 12. There's a lot you dont know at 12. And there is also a lot people get up to at 12. You would be surpised.

A lecturer in sociology at one of the ITs in this country [ireland]told me that at present [this was about 5 years ago] one in five babies are born to mothers whose breasts arent developed enough to breastfeed.

I agree with you, that other lad thinks a kid should find out for themselfs online????? how stupid is that

sam34 · 21-03-2010 06:29PM

james finn wrote: »

I agree with you, that other lad thinks a kid should find out for themselfs online????? how stupid is that

for the third time, i'm not saying we shouldnt give kids sex education in school, but i am saying that people should educate themselves also, and not wring their hands and blame someoen else when it all goes pearshaped

the information is not too hard to find.

secondly, i'm not a "lad"

thirdly, i am anything but stupid, and i object to you insulting me in that manner.

The Corinthian · 21-03-2010 06:38PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

It was not too long ago that unmarried women didnt have rights to their children either. But they were sent off to laundries to get beated and their children were sent somewhere else never to be seen again.

Past injustice does not justify present injustice.

metrovelvet · 21-03-2010 06:43PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Past injustice does not justify present injustice.

Of course not. And that was not my point. It is just another indicator of the status of marriage in this country. At least unmarried fathers were never sent off and beaten. Historically the men have had it better. Its only recently that they [arguably] don't.

The laundries are not that long ago btw.

james finn · 21-03-2010 06:44PM

sam34 wrote: »

for the third time, i'm not saying we shouldnt give kids sex education in school, but i am saying that people should educate themselves also, and not wring their hands and blame someoen else when it all goes pearshaped

the information is not too hard to find.

secondly, i'm not a "lad"

thirdly, i am anything but stupid, and i object to you insulting me in that manner.

Its the same thing, safe sex fathers rights, your saying dont teach kids about what will happen if they have a kid unmarried, let them find out online??? why would they look up rights when their told in school all men and wemen are equal??????????????

james finn · 21-03-2010 06:46PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Of course not. And that was not my point. It is just another indicator of the status of marriage in this country. At least unmarried fathers were never sent off and beaten. Historically the men have had it better. Its only recently that they [arguably] don't.

The laundries are not that long ago btw.

when the women wer beaten why wernt the fathers given the kids, oh yes men didnt have rights back then.

Dudess · 21-03-2010 06:50PM

Yes of course men can be faced with discrimination in certain aspects of life due to their gender, and they can also experience bias. And for women, the very same applies.

Instead of this causing a rift between the sexes, perhaps it should unite them?

And I hate how feminism is always brought into these discussions - as if it's the only reason for discrimination experienced by men. While I acknowledge feminism has been twisted by many with a warped agenda, thank fuk for feminism - because women would not be able to work wherever they want, study/train in whatever they want, vote or go back to work when married/after having babies, if it were not for feminism.

sam34 · 21-03-2010 06:51PM

james finn wrote: »

Its the same thing, safe sex fathers rights, your saying dont teach kids about what will happen if they have a kid unmarried, let them find out online??? why would they look up rights when their told in school all men and wemen are equal??????????????

jesus h christ, how many more times do i need to say it?

i'll put it in capitals for you this time:

I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD NOT TEACH KIDS ABOUT SAFE SEX, OR ABOUT PARENTS RIGHTS

(btw, safe sex is not the same thing as fathers rights)

i am saying that schools are one source of this information, and there are also many others available.

people who make life-altering decisions need to research them, and not sit back and hope someone else will do it for them.

in my opinion, if you are having sex you should be aware of the consequences. if nobody has yet told you what these are, you should make teh effort and find out for yourself, instead of carrying on regardless and then blaming someone other than yourself when there is a problem.

Dr Galen · 21-03-2010 06:51PM

james finn wrote: »

Its the same thing, safe sex fathers rights, your saying dont teach kids about what will happen if they have a kid unmarried, let them find out online??? why would they look up rights when their told in school all men and wemen are equal??????????????

James

Thats not what she is saying.

Its one thing to have a view and a standpoint ( like The Corinthian) and another to be soapboxing. Please read the forum charter about this sort of thing.

Cheers

MM

Dr Galen · 21-03-2010 06:52PM

james finn wrote: »

when the women wer beaten why wernt the fathers given the kids, oh yes men didnt have rights back then.

have you a source to back this up?

Other posters who make claims about injustices against unmarried and married fathers have been able to back these assertions up. The same standard applies imho.

Dr Galen · 21-03-2010 06:54PM

And I hate how feminism is always brought into these discussions

yes, its getting tiring tbh.

james finn · 21-03-2010 06:55PM

sam34 wrote: »

jesus h christ, how many more times do i need to say it?

i'll put it in capitals for you this time:

I AM NOT SAYING WE SHOULD NOT TEACH KIDS ABOUT SAFE SEX, OR ABOUT PARENTS RIGHTS

(btw, safe sex is not the same thing as fathers rights)

i am saying that schools are one source of this information, and there are also many others available.

people who make life-altering decisions need to research them, and not sit back and hope someone else will do it for them.

in my opinion, if you are having sex you should be aware of the consequences. if nobody has yet told you what these are, you should make teh effort and find out for yourself, instead of carrying on regardless and then blaming someone other than yourself when there is a problem.

yes your kid will be aware by looking it up online instead of porn, you cannot blame the kids and thats what your hinting at, we all see it

Dudess · 21-03-2010 06:56PM

james finn wrote: »

when the women wer beaten why wernt the fathers given the kids, oh yes men didnt have rights back then.

During the Magdalene Laundries era men didn't have rights? Seriously?

james finn · 21-03-2010 06:58PM

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

have you a source to back this up?

Other posters who make claims about injustices against unmarried and married fathers have been able to back these assertions up. The same standard applies imho.

oh so fathers had rights back then and then the law was changed and rights taken away???????

try looking up the laws in 1916 for fathers, it hasnt changed

james finn · 21-03-2010 07:00PM

When these women were locked up can anyone show me a link wer an unmarried father had rights and if he did when wer them rights removed

sam34 · 21-03-2010 07:01PM

james finn wrote: »

yes your kid will be aware by looking it up online instead of porn, you cannot blame the kids and thats what your hinting at, we all see it

oooooh you've sussed my hidden agenda, good on ya :rolleyes:

i cannot blame someone who has sex without first investigating the consequences?

why not?

i cannot think that they were irresponsible and foolish?

i should instead blame some entity like teh school or government, because then the person wouldnt have to take responsibility for their actions?

if they can look up porn they can look up paternal rights.

it isnt rocket science.

Dr Galen · 21-03-2010 07:01PM

james finn wrote: »

oh so fathers had rights back then and then the law was changed and rights taken away???????

try looking up the laws in 1916 for fathers, it hasnt changed

if your going to make the claims the onus is on you to back them up mate.

You are aware how the Laundries operated aren't you? How many of the women actually got pregnant in the first place and why there were no fathers around to take the babies as your suggesting?

james finn · 21-03-2010 07:04PM

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

if your going to make the claims the onus is on you to back them up mate.

You are aware how the Laundries operated aren't you? How many of the women actually got pregnant in the first place and why there were no fathers around to take the babies as your suggesting?

eh 1916 law has never changed mate,

show me the link of the fathers who had rights but never showed up,

your making all the claims not me. my claim is as it stands, the 1916 law on family.

sam34 · 21-03-2010 07:04PM

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

You are aware how the Laundries operated aren't you? How many of the women actually got pregnant in the first place and why there were no fathers around to take the babies as your suggesting?

maybe he wasnt taught it in school and therefore couldnt possibly be expected to know :rolleyes:

james finn · 21-03-2010 07:07PM

Hate people making daft claims that fathers had rights and at some stage later the rights wer removed, stupid

Discrimination against Men

Comments