Mens Rights

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 03:49PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Are people here proposing positive discrimination for those who choose to have families because the employer, like most people living in the real world, know you cant commit to both a child and a career?

Actually, that already exists.

A different Irish exam for kids NOT living int he Gaeltacht.

That's actually not a bad idea.

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 03:52PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, that already exists.

.

Where? The civil service? Or are you talking about maternity leave? If the latter then that has actually incresed the problem of discrimination and not solved it.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 03:59PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Where? The civil service? Or are you talking about maternity leave? If the latter then that has actually incresed the problem of discrimination and not solved it.

Yes, maternity leave and how it is illegal to discriminate against someone on the basis of pregnancy/motherhood.

And yes, making it illegal to downsize pregnant women has resulted in women who statistically are likely to become mothers being discriminated, however this is also because it is assumed that women will be the child carers - something which is reflected in society at several levels, not least of all where it comes to the rights that both genders enjoy where it comes to their children.

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 04:11PM

Legal sshmegal. It still happens. And people have woken up to the fact you cannot have it all. Try and the gods will put you in your place. Total hubris on the part of feminism. You will be torn apart.

Women will be the child carers for at least the first year. No matter how hard men close their eyes and stand under a rainbow and wish really really really hard they could grow their own womb it aint gonna happen. ANd that is just how the biological cookie crumbles.

But there is no positive discrimination in place for after maternit leave anyway. For having to take a day off because your kid is sick, or god forrbid several for hospital,or discipline problems or whatever.

If you are a law firm and you are handing big cases that require people to be there long long into the night working on such cases, or an accounting firm which has several tax seasons a year, then why on earth would you hire a woman? OR equalise the family set up then they will just not hire people with families full stop, men or women.

If the world gets as complicated as what is being proposed on this thread, I will move to Vermont with a box shed and a generator.

CDfm · 23-06-2010 04:29PM

But what we are talking about here is people taking government money -our money- for expensive training and education -& then fecking off.

These are high status & high paid jobs so maybe the nature of the employment contracts need to change and the nature of the training contracts funding needs to change.

I mean paying for a doctor to be trained & having them not showing up is like having a ferrarri that doesnt start. Statistically, the spec is great and the gender ratio improves. The gender ratio has not translated into service delivery.

So what is more important , the gender ratio or the service delivery, the nurse or the patient.

Teaching is similar.Is the priority the teacher or the student.

So the question seems to be how much do we compromise on the quality of our services in the name of gender equality?

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 04:39PM

CDfm wrote: »

But what we are talking about here is people taking government money -our money- for expensive training and education -& then fecking off.

These are high status & high paid jobs so maybe the nature of the employment contracts need to change and the nature of the training contracts funding needs to change.

I mean paying for a doctor to be trained & having them not showing up is like having a ferrarri that doesnt start. Statistically, the spec is great and the gender ratio improves. The gender ratio has not translated into service delivery.

So what is more important , the gender ratio or the service delivery, the nurse or the patient.

Teaching is similar.Is the priority the teacher or the student.

So the question seems to be how much do we compromise on the quality of our services in the name of gender equality?

Thats a fair point that I completely forgot about because I am so used to private education in the US where the state is not paying for your training nor do we have maternity leave legislated. Its up to the employer and most do oblige, that is if they hire you in the first place. Scratch that. They'll hire you but you wont get promoted.

That is a real dilemmna cdfm especially for the health service.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 04:59PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

And people have woken up to the fact you cannot have it all.

I don't think they have - certainly not many women, at least those who buy into the whole post-Feminist "I can have it all" kick.

Women will be the child carers for at least the first year. No matter how hard men close their eyes and stand under a rainbow and wish really really really hard they could grow their own womb it aint gonna happen. ANd that is just how the biological cookie crumbles.

Can you give me a scientific, rather than social, reason why this "is just how the biological cookie crumbles"?

But there is no positive discrimination in place for after maternit leave anyway. For having to take a day off because your kid is sick, or god forrbid several for hospital,or discipline problems or whatever.

Not presently no, but I can see some groups arguing for it.

If the world gets as complicated as what is being proposed on this thread, I will move to Vermont with a box shed and a generator.

Hmmm...

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 05:15PM

You want a scientiic reason why women have wombs?

Well Ive heard it all now.

CDfm · 23-06-2010 05:21PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Thats a fair point that I completely forgot about because I am so used to private education in the US where the state is not paying for your training nor do we have maternity leave legislated. Its up to the employer and most do oblige, that is if they hire you in the first place. Scratch that. They'll hire you but you wont get promoted.

That is a real dilemmna cdfm especially for the health service.

The system should be flexible enough recruitment into education & recruitment wise and training wise to accomodate this.

My own feeling is that it can be accomadated but you need to prioritise service delivery.

I have heard a discussion on pre & post natal care and the women were quite emphatic that the wanted continuity of care from the same doctor & midwife. So there is a trade of here. Should they lower their expectations.

In Irish education which is now a female dominated profession we end up with 25% or so functionally illiterate adults . Continuity is a preference there too. Should we accept that.

Now where would we be if the fire service or ambulance service or garda said in the morning we all want to work 9-5.

This is a huge problem. I am not singling out these occupations but they are biggies in public services. You could add the utility companies like ESB & Gas to that or refuse collection.

So its not so much about gender as much as personal expectations and service delivery. Also, are the expectations of those taking up the jobs & training reasonable too that they will be expected to fulfill the role.

amacachi · 23-06-2010 06:19PM

taconnol wrote: »

I wouldn't agree at all. The article I linked to suggested we're storing up some serious economic and social issues by ignoring the imbalance in employment.

I don't understand the logic of just "leaving it to the market" when we can do something about it. The market is there to serve us, not the other way around.

A market controlled isn't a proper market. Suppose it's a fundamental difference you and I have, let people live with what they decide and everything else would be my view but it doesn't seem to be a popular one in this country.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 06:23PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

You want a scientiic reason why women have wombs?

How does a womb make a woman the child carer for at least the first year? Do you put the kid back in there like a kangaroo when no one is looking?

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 06:26PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

How does a womb make a woman the child carer for at least the first year? Do you put the kid back in there like a kangaroo when no one is looking?

Oh jesus Christ. Why dont you ask the parents on the parenting boards.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 06:32PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Oh jesus Christ. Why dont you ask the parents on the parenting boards.

No seriously; you've claimed that a womb somehow scientifically makes a woman the automatic carer of a child "for at least the first year".

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the child is out of the womb and it's not going back in. Biologically breast feeding is the only physical thing that a woman can supply that cannot be supplied by a man and other than the availability of alternatives, many women express their breast milk and don't actually have to be there.

So you're really going to have to explain to me why it is so scientifically certain that a woman be the child carer, let alone explain why it must be for at least a year.

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 07:04PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

No seriously; you've claimed that a womb somehow scientifically makes a woman the automatic carer of a child "for at least the first year".

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but the child is out of the womb and it's not going back in. Biologically breast feeding is the only physical thing that a woman can supply that cannot be supplied by a man and other than the availability of alternatives, many women express their breast milk and don't actually have to be there.

So you're really going to have to explain to me why it is so scientifically certain that a woman be the child carer, let alone explain why it must be for at least a year.

A mother is more than a lactating cow.

The relationship the child has with the mother started long before the child was born. WHen the child is born the child seeks his or her mother's body. Its called rooting. The mothers chest is enabled to regulate the body temperature of her infant by placing the infant on her chest.There is all sorts of scientific studies about chemicals being released at birth and earbuds being developed at 18 weeks in the womb, etc. The relationship is a continnuum.

Now, take this or leave it - depending on whether you think psychology is a science or not, but the intensive bonding a child has with its mother, parents is in the first year, specifically the first six months. This is a huge topic on which there is plenty of research done. Somehow, based on your idea that a mother is reduntant once the child is out of the womb, is pretty horrific.

Breastfeeding is more than about supplying natural milk. It builds co immunity, closeness, and oxytocin is released to promote the childs bonding to the mother. The infant has the mothers heartbeat, which s/he listened to for nine months where everything was taken care of. I could go on and on but there are plenty more qualified people around who can explain more and who have been paid to publish it. So go ask them. And try expressing milk and let us know how much fun it is.

Sorry but there are certain things a man cannot supply, like a child's relationship with its mother.

Honestly I've never heard the likes of it.

But let's not forget that maternity leave is for physical recovery.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 07:24PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

The relationship the child has with the mother started long before the child was born. WHen the child is born the child seeks his or her mother's body. Its called rooting. The mothers chest is enabled to regulate the body temperature of her infant by placing the infant on her chest.There is all sorts of scientific studies about chemicals being released at birth and earbuds being developed at 18 weeks in the womb, etc. The relationship is a continnuum.

Can you supply credible scientific evidence of this? How it is so essential or why it must lead to the mother being the child carer for at least a year?

Somehow, based on your idea that a mother is reduntant once the child is out of the womb, is pretty horrific.

I never said the mother is redundant - I challenged that the mother was essential and essential for at least a year - there's a big difference.

Sorry but there are certain things a man cannot supply, like a child's relationship with its mother.

Thus a mother should be the carer for at least a year so as to facilitate the child's relationship with its mother. Then were the father to be the carer for at least a year so as to facilitate the child's relationship with its father is of lesser importance.

That's frankly misidrist crap.

But let's not forget that maternity leave is for physical recovery.

I've not questioned this, only the role of child carer - but are you suggesting a woman needs at least a year to recover?

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 07:32PM

Maternity leave is not for a year. But since you asked the standard believed length of time it takes the body to recover is a year.

In infancy, yes the relationship the child has with its mother is more important. THats not to say the one with the father isnt important.

There is plenty of scientific evidence to back it up as well as psychological evidence to back it up. Certainly there is more to it than anything you have posited so far.

I know a woman with about 12 law degrees from Oxford. Heartened feminist with a 4 year old and another on the way. She has had to seriously downgrade her job [twice] and that is with a supportive husband who has done is 50 percent, possibly even more. ANd now it is looking like ONE of them will have to give up their careers because the logistics are just not going to work out and it will likely be him. ANd even with that SHE will have to take the year out of work to look after the new infant. Why? BECAUSE INFANTS NEED THEIR MOTHERS AND SHE WILL NEED TO RECOVER.

I feel like im explaining things to someone who gets the words but not the music.

The Corinthian · 23-06-2010 07:47PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

In infancy, yes the relationship the child has with its mother is more important.

Why? Other than social prejudice, peppered with misandry, that is?

There is plenty of scientific evidence to back it up as well as psychological evidence to back it up. Certainly there is more to it than anything you have posited so far.

That's because I didn't make any sweeping claims - you did and I am calling on you to back them up. So where is this scientific evidence?

CDfm · 23-06-2010 07:47PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

A mother is more than a lactating cow.

But let's not forget that maternity leave is for physical recovery.

:eek: fight fight fight

we can disagree on the maternity recovery time whether its 3 or 6 or 12 months -it is a fact of life as is women giving birth.

What should matter is that we can chat openly about things like how the current model affects service delivery of vital and essential services.

the cost of equality might be that we charge doctors for their training or we train so many of em that maternity & career breaks are irrelevant but the job status & pay decreases.

nursing the same -train men & you get shift work and weekend work as men never have a problem with that.

teaching,especially primary teaching is more of a problem, but it also needs to be looked at in terms of service delivery and increasing literacy rates.

So while gender equality is part of the mix -service delivery needs to get back up there.

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 08:08PM

CDfm wrote: »

:eek: fight fight fight

we can disagree on the maternity recovery time whether its 3 or 6 or 12 months -it is a fact of life as is women giving birth.

What should matter is that we can chat openly about things like how the current model affects service delivery of vital and essential services.

the cost of equality might be that we charge doctors for their training or we train so many of em that maternity & career breaks are irrelevant but the job status & pay decreases.

nursing the same -train men & you get shift work and weekend work as men never have a problem with that.

teaching,especially primary teaching is more of a problem, but it also needs to be looked at in terms of service delivery and increasing literacy rates.

So while gender equality is part of the mix -service delivery needs to get back up there.

Perhaps one solution would be for the hospitals and or schools to pay for the training but have it tied into a five year binding contract of no leave of absences other than your usual holiday?

That or specialised training becomes something for graduate school, leaving it to the masters level where it gets paid for privately by the individual.

limklad · 23-06-2010 08:59PM

Thaedydal wrote: »

Esp in this country you have what rights you can afford to push for,
if cases on the decriminalisation of homosexuality for example had not gone to the EU high courts then it would still be illegal.

It was in the Courts in Strasbourg The" European Court of Human Rights" under the organisation "Council of Europe" which is far older than the EU that help with decriminalisation of homosexuality. Senator David Norris took the Government to court there. The EU had nothing to do nor took interest with decriminalisation of homosexuality in Republic of Ireland as it was an "economic union" not an Organisation like the "Council of Europe" which dealt with issues like Human Rights.

The EU only adopted Human Rights Much Much later with the introduction of the Treaty of Amsterdam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Amsterdam in 1997 and a Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU in 2000, which incorporated the same Rights given under "Council of Europe" version of "European Convention of Human Rights" (ECHR). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights

Article 14 - discrimination Is the one we should take the government to Court on when it comes to inequality in Irish Law due to Gender. Been male we been punished and Rights to Equality when it comes to Family rights is been abused by the Irish state, Government and Irish Courts.

Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms wrote:

Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

http://www.coe.int/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe

Judgement on 26 October 1988: http://www.aidslex.org/site_documents/SO-0060E.pdf against criminalization of Homosexuality.

CDfm · 23-06-2010 09:12PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Perhaps one solution would be for the hospitals and or schools to pay for the training but have it tied into a five year binding contract of no leave of absences other than your usual holiday?

That or specialised training becomes something for graduate school, leaving it to the masters level where it gets paid for privately by the individual.

Absolutely, its like we train teachers to teach our kids and doctors to go doctoring our mothers and babies.Otherwise, a doctor who doesnt use their training is a very expensive waste of space.

By all means be flexible but put in an education voucher and loan system but we train them for our benefit and not for their pleasure.

sam34 · 23-06-2010 10:34PM

CDfm wrote: »

nursing the same -train men & you get shift work and weekend work as men never have a problem with that.

oh really?

men are happy to work weekends and night shifts, and "never" have a problem with it?

LOL

CDfm · 23-06-2010 11:20PM

sam34 wrote: »

oh really?

men are happy to work weekends and night shifts, and "never" have a problem with it?

LOL

men are super accomadating, thoughtful and kind

the point i am trying to make is a bit different in that culturally men are expected to step up.

i dont see why parents should get treated differently to non parents work wise and sick leave wise

i dont see why a parent should have protected job rights and seniority when someone else is filling to carry on their role.

the other aspect is that in the civil service attention is often drawn to female absenteeism almost seen as a job perk.

i know its a bit of a generalisation and have no problem with maternity leave or any of that -its the principle that service to the client comes second to the job holder

metrovelvet · 23-06-2010 11:23PM

CDfm wrote: »

men are super accomadating, thoughtful and kind

the point i am trying to make is a bit different in that culturally men are expected to step up.

i dont see why parents should get treated differently to non parents work wise and sick leave wise

i dont see why a parent should have protected job rights and seniority when someone else is filling to carry on their role.

the other aspect is that in the civil service attention is often drawn to female absenteeism almost seen as a job perk.

i know its a bit of a generalisation and have no problem with maternity leave or any of that -its the principle that service to the client comes second to the job holder

That's an across the board problem in this country top to bottom. The staff all think they are doing you a favor by showing up on time, from plumbers to salesmen for your bin collection. THere is no sense of customer or client satisfaction here.

sam34 · 24-06-2010 07:28AM

CDfm wrote: »

men are super accomadating, thoughtful and kind

the point i am trying to make is a bit different in that culturally men are expected to step up.

i dont see why parents should get treated differently to non parents work wise and sick leave wise

i dont see why a parent should have protected job rights and seniority when someone else is filling to carry on their role.

the other aspect is that in the civil service attention is often drawn to female absenteeism almost seen as a job perk.

i know its a bit of a generalisation and have no problem with maternity leave or any of that -its the principle that service to the client comes second to the job holder

that response is neither an answer to my question nor something that backs up your claim that i have challenged

CDfm · 24-06-2010 08:25AM

sam34 wrote: »

that response is neither an answer to my question nor something that backs up your claim that i have challenged

what claim did you challenge. i thought your response was a bit tongue in cheek and my response to the male/female thing is that yes people do have rights and and it shouldnt be looked at in an all or nothing way.I postulated that service delivery to clients is often put lower on the chain of priorities then it should be.

i have read and seen reported issues concerning female/mother absenteeism in the civil service and i have a friend who works in industry who heads up a technical section & who says lots of women could not do her role because they would prioritise their lives differently etc. Her very well paid job means she is on call even when on holiday.

I have tried to widen this part of the discussion away from simply male vs females or maternity to include service delivery and client needs. I have also tried to add others than parents both male and female into the debate and include people who do not have or want kids and others such as gay & lesbians in this. As you cannot have a proper forum discussion without including everybody.

I have posted here about a lunchtime radio interview on Newstalk of Dr Jim McDaid on the composition of the medical profession and how changes in it have changed service delivery. It was an aside to an interview on hospital care and motherhood & it was he not me who said the area was far to contentious to be discussed and he not me who suggested what matters might be discussed if there was an open debatebut but would not discuss them because of the emotional noise and vitriol that comes out of these debates.

I thought he put his points well and if he as a politician and doctor won't be dragged into that side of the debate than i probably should not want to engage in it either, medical advice and all that.

Dr Galen · 24-06-2010 08:49AM

Ok everyone,

This has been a great thread, but I'm noticing 2 things.

1) We are beginning to meander around the place

2) There are about 3 or 4 different conversations and sub-topics going on in the last 3 pages

Could I suggest we try and stick to one of those, and for anything else good that comes up start a new thread. Don't be afraid of that new thread button. I'd rather have loads of good threads, all staying more or less on topic, than one big winding messy yoke of a thread.

If I see anything obvious, I'll spilt it off this thread into a new one for ya, but that might take a while.

Cheers

DrG

The Corinthian · 24-06-2010 08:55AM

Dr Galen wrote: »

Could I suggest we try and stick to one of those, and for anything else good that comes up start a new thread.

I agree, but if we do so can we at least pick one that has a vague connection to the OT?

This thread is about men's rights ultimately, and if we go into a discussion on the philosophical consequences of capitalism on the family unit we will quickly lose sight on this - assuming we have not done so already.

sam34 · 24-06-2010 09:04AM

CDfm wrote: »

what claim did you challenge. .

i quoted it in my post to make it clear.

to reiterate, it was your claim that men "never" have problems with shiftwork or weekends

Dr Galen · 24-06-2010 09:54AM

Via wrote: »

Why do you think it is that no one seems to be fighting for, campaigning for, or even just talking about, Mens Rights or Equality?

Is there a movement? A platform? An organization? A group of any sort???

Or is this thread the only place where you are very welcome to discuss your concerns...

Ok so this was the OP

I think The Corinthian is correct. We are getting into all sorts of socio-economic debating here, along with a smattering of other things.

Can we bring the discussion back to this point and try and answer the question posed.

Where is the Man equivalent of Womens Aid for example, why do men not care or seem bothered?

Mens Rights

Comments