Dr Galen wrote: » 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?
eviltwin wrote: » Because men can't be arsed?
Women's rights weren't just handed to us on a plate you know, we had to fight for them. We still have to fight for them for women who are subjected to unspeakable actions across the world and thats what we do.
Men can talk the talk but thats all they seem to do. I know so many fathers "denied" access to their kids in their words but do they get up off their bums and do anything about it? No they don't because that would involve effort and how much easy to sit around and feel sorry for yourself and blame everyone else.
And there is the male version of Womens Aid - its called Amen
The Corinthian wrote: » I hate to admit it, but this is in large part correct. In part because we have been fed the idea that we are the oppressors, and thus cannot be the oppressed and in part because being seen as a victim and alpha-male is an oxymoron. As a result, we rarely act until it is too late, and then often only campaign on the issue that has affected us. Until then, it is someone else's problem to solve, that we may recognize and even discuss, but never actually do anything about. Even here there is a lot of navel-gazing, justified as 'education' that will ultimately go nowhere.
Dr Galen wrote: » Do you think that the Irish psyche has a bearing on this as well? If you look at the country in general, it is only when there is another slipup that the general public come out with marches, protests and such. In fact, judging by the complete lack of anything resembling protest at our current government and shambles of a political system, I can totally see why men don't get up off their arses to do anything.
Dr Galen wrote: » Do you think that the Irish psyche has a bearing on this as well?
If you look at the country in general, it is only when there is another slipup that the general public come out with marches, protests and such. In fact, judging by the complete lack of anything resembling protest at our current government and shambles of a political system, I can totally see why men don't get up off their arses to do anything.
eviltwin wrote: » Because men can't be arsed? Women's rights weren't just handed to us on a plate you know, we had to fight for them. We still have to fight for them for women who are subjected to unspeakable actions across the world and thats what we do. Men can talk the talk but thats all they seem to do. I know so many fathers "denied" access to their kids in their words but do they get up off their bums and do anything about it? No they don't because that would involve effort and how much easy to sit around and feel sorry for yourself and blame everyone else. And there is the male version of Womens Aid - its called Amen
sam34 wrote: » oh really? men are happy to work weekends and night shifts, and "never" have a problem with it? LOL
sam34 wrote: » 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
CDfm wrote: » Maybe I should have posted this instead
The Corinthian wrote: » Or perhaps you should address his point without attempting to use humour to sidestep it?
CDfm wrote: » and I dont want to address the point as it would drag it too much off topic and I am into a more gender diversity and egalitarian approach
CDfm wrote: » sam is a her and not a his and I dont want to address the point as it would drag it too much off topic and I am into a more gender diversity and egalitarian approach
CDfm wrote: » and I dont want to address the point
Zulu wrote: » Why are we accepting the assertion that 'having a problem with shift work' is a gender issue? It's not.
The Corinthian wrote: » I'm still wondering why we seem to have accepted that women should be the automatic carers (apparently because they have a womb) and that "the relationship the child has with its mother is more important" than the one it has with its father. How can we even begin to have a discussion about men's rights when bigoted crap like that is being accepted without so much as a whimper, for fear of being seen to do a gender debate?
The Corinthian wrote: » I'm still wondering why we seem to have accepted that women should be the automatic carers (apparently because they have a womb) and that "the relationship the child has with its mother is more important" than the one it has with its father
Dr Galen wrote: » i think thats a good point and is worthy of a thread in itself really.
metrovelvet wrote: » Is this about mens' rights or father's rights or is it that mens's rights movement are solely about fatherhood? I take it then that this would also be about gay mens right to adoption in Ireland too?
Dr Galen wrote: » well in fairness Sam is a mod and so by asking you the question and asking you to back it up, I take it to mean that its ok to answer and it won't be seen as an attempt to go OT.
EDIT: Just as a sidenote, and related to your point CDfm, having worked in the Health Service and done the shifts, the nights and the weekends, I often had an issue wih it tbh. Was a serious pain in my ass. I wasn't alone in that either, a lot of the lads I would have known would have felt similar to weekends especially
sam34 wrote: » we're not accepting it cdfm has claimed it is i have challenged him on it so far he has "answered" by a) making points that are irrelevant to my question and in no way answer it, b) posting some alleged humourous clip and c) claiming he doesnt want to address the issue i await attempt d with bated breath :rolleyes: This is one issue relating to absenteeism in the US which suggests it is a gender cutural issue. There is a link to the article based on a US Bureau of Labor Report. Female absenteeism is not just about child care Why women call in sick more than men is a complex workplace issue By Eve Tahmincioglu msnbc.com contributor updated 1:38 p.m. ET Nov. 5, 2007 The bad news: Women are still absent nearly twice as often as their male counterparts in the workplace. It’s been a perpetual problem: Women tend to call in sick more often than men. But the why — even though you may think you know the answer — isn’t that clear cut, nor should it be................................ ............................. Patton and his co-author Gary Johns found that elevated absentee rates for women could not be fully explained by health, family or job issues." Instead the researcher postulated that social expectations have created an "absence culture" for women that may be a factor. "This absence culture for women may partially legitimize absenteeism for this group and attenuate perceptions of deviance surrounding women’s absence," the researchers said. "At the same time, such an absence culture, regardless of whether it leads to actual higher absenteeism for particular women, may also be harmful to women in other ways.”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21547885/ The article also references other studies This article is a UK legal case from a law firm Thompsons more relating to shift work & where a woman sued over unfair dismissal over rostering issues. London Underground has 2000 male and 12 female drivers at the time and the plaintiff wanted to set her own roster. Issue 24 (July 1998) Contents TUPE plus ça change? Disability, dismissal and reasonable adjustments Payback for back pay? Legislating for Fairness at Work Beyond recognition Single parents and shift work Single parents and shift work London Underground Limited v Edwards (No.2) Court of Appeal 21 May 1998 The Court of Appeal has held that London Underground indirectly discriminated against Susan Edwards, a single parent with a young child, when it introduced a shift system which made it impossible for her to continue in her employment and care for her children. In Issue 10 of LELR (Going Underground)we reported the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in this case. Susan Edwards worked for London Underground since 1983. She qualified as a train driver in 1987, her baby was born in the same year. She was able, by swapping shifts with colleagues, to organise for herself a shift pattern in which she could accommodate her domestic and childcare arrangements. In 1991, London Underground had a re-organisation which involved a new shift work system. The tribunal found as a fact that it was necessary for Susan to work during the day because she had sole care of her child and that under the new system it would have been more difficult for her to arrange any exchange of shifts. This would mean that she would have to work longer hours than previously. She was presented with the alternative of either signing an acceptance of the new roster or facing dismissal. Susan Edwards' case proves how difficult it is to bring a claim of indirect sex discrimination and succeed. The woman affected, first of all has to prove that her employer applied a 'requirement or condition' which applied equally to a man. Susan Edwards complained of discrimination in the applying of a condition or requirement that made it impossible for her to continue in her employmenthttp://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0350006.htm .
sam34 wrote: » we're not accepting it cdfm has claimed it is i have challenged him on it so far he has "answered" by a) making points that are irrelevant to my question and in no way answer it, b) posting some alleged humourous clip and c) claiming he doesnt want to address the issue i await attempt d with bated breath :rolleyes:
Female absenteeism is not just about child care Why women call in sick more than men is a complex workplace issue By Eve Tahmincioglu msnbc.com contributor updated 1:38 p.m. ET Nov. 5, 2007 The bad news: Women are still absent nearly twice as often as their male counterparts in the workplace. It’s been a perpetual problem: Women tend to call in sick more often than men. But the why — even though you may think you know the answer — isn’t that clear cut, nor should it be................................ ............................. Patton and his co-author Gary Johns found that elevated absentee rates for women could not be fully explained by health, family or job issues." Instead the researcher postulated that social expectations have created an "absence culture" for women that may be a factor. "This absence culture for women may partially legitimize absenteeism for this group and attenuate perceptions of deviance surrounding women’s absence," the researchers said. "At the same time, such an absence culture, regardless of whether it leads to actual higher absenteeism for particular women, may also be harmful to women in other ways.”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21547885/
Issue 24 (July 1998) Contents TUPE plus ça change? Disability, dismissal and reasonable adjustments Payback for back pay? Legislating for Fairness at Work Beyond recognition Single parents and shift work Single parents and shift work London Underground Limited v Edwards (No.2) Court of Appeal 21 May 1998 The Court of Appeal has held that London Underground indirectly discriminated against Susan Edwards, a single parent with a young child, when it introduced a shift system which made it impossible for her to continue in her employment and care for her children. In Issue 10 of LELR (Going Underground)we reported the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal in this case. Susan Edwards worked for London Underground since 1983. She qualified as a train driver in 1987, her baby was born in the same year. She was able, by swapping shifts with colleagues, to organise for herself a shift pattern in which she could accommodate her domestic and childcare arrangements. In 1991, London Underground had a re-organisation which involved a new shift work system. The tribunal found as a fact that it was necessary for Susan to work during the day because she had sole care of her child and that under the new system it would have been more difficult for her to arrange any exchange of shifts. This would mean that she would have to work longer hours than previously. She was presented with the alternative of either signing an acceptance of the new roster or facing dismissal. Susan Edwards' case proves how difficult it is to bring a claim of indirect sex discrimination and succeed. The woman affected, first of all has to prove that her employer applied a 'requirement or condition' which applied equally to a man. Susan Edwards complained of discrimination in the applying of a condition or requirement that made it impossible for her to continue in her employmenthttp://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0350006.htm
CDfm wrote: » This is one issue relating to absenteeism in the US which suggests it is a gender cutural issue. There is a link to the article based on a US Bureau of Labor Report. The article also references other studies that would be great if we were talking about absenteeism. but we're not. we're talking about your claim that men "never" have problems with shift work or working weekends
This is one issue relating to absenteeism in the US which suggests it is a gender cutural issue. There is a link to the article based on a US Bureau of Labor Report. The article also references other studies that would be great if we were talking about absenteeism. but we're not. we're talking about your claim that men "never" have problems with shift work or working weekends
This is one issue relating to absenteeism in the US which suggests it is a gender cutural issue. There is a link to the article based on a US Bureau of Labor Report. The article also references other studies
sam34 wrote: » CDfm wrote: » that would be great if we were talking about absenteeism. but we're not. we're talking about your claim that men "never" have problems with shift work or working weekends I know and then Dr Galen grumbled and let the cat out of the bag with EDIT: Just as a sidenote, and related to your point CDfm, having worked in the Health Service and done the shifts, the nights and the weekends, I often had an issue wih it tbh. Was a serious pain in my ass. I wasn't alone in that either, a lot of the lads I would have known would have felt similar to weekends especially Well that disproved my theory. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/020725/dq020725b-eng.htm Thursday, July 25, 2002 Shift work and health Three out of 10 employed Canadians worked some type of shift in 2000/01. Many shift workers reported problems that ranged from sleep disruption to difficulties with relationships. For most of them, working shift was not a choice, but a requirement of employment. For both sexes, an evening shift in 1994/95 was associated with increases in psychological distress over the following two years, according to a new profile of shift workers published in the latest issue of Health reports. Men who worked an evening, rotating or irregular shift in 1994/95 had increased odds of having been diagnosed with a chronic condition over a four-year period. For women, a non-standard schedule was not associated with a new diagnosis of chronic conditions during that period. In 2000/01, 30% of men and 26% of women aged 18 to 54 who were employed throughout the year had non-standard schedules. About one-quarter of shift workers reported evening or night shifts. Rotating and irregular shifts were reported more frequently, each accounting for about 4 in 10 of these workers. Whether they had an evening, rotating or irregular shift, the majority of shift workers had no choice. However, men were more likely than women to say that it was a requirement of the job: 65% of men and 53% of women working an evening shift reported that they had to. In contrast, 11% of women, but just 3% of men, working an evening shift did so because they were caring for family. Shift work more common among blue-collar, sales and service workers Shift work was more common in blue-collar or sales and service occupations than in white-collar or clerical jobs. People working fewer than 30 hours a week were more likely to have non-standard schedules, as were those who worked on weekends. The likelihood of working shift decreased with advancing age, possibly because older workers with seniority have more choice in their hours than do younger, less experienced workers. Single or previously married workers were more likely than those who were married to have non-standard schedules. Male workers living in households with children were less likely than those in childless households to work shifts. There was no difference for female workers, which may be, in part, because of women's greater tendency to cite caring for family as their reason for shift work.
CDfm wrote: » that would be great if we were talking about absenteeism. but we're not. we're talking about your claim that men "never" have problems with shift work or working weekends I know and then Dr Galen grumbled and let the cat out of the bag with EDIT: Just as a sidenote, and related to your point CDfm, having worked in the Health Service and done the shifts, the nights and the weekends, I often had an issue wih it tbh. Was a serious pain in my ass. I wasn't alone in that either, a lot of the lads I would have known would have felt similar to weekends especially Well that disproved my theory. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/020725/dq020725b-eng.htm Thursday, July 25, 2002 Shift work and health Three out of 10 employed Canadians worked some type of shift in 2000/01. Many shift workers reported problems that ranged from sleep disruption to difficulties with relationships. For most of them, working shift was not a choice, but a requirement of employment. For both sexes, an evening shift in 1994/95 was associated with increases in psychological distress over the following two years, according to a new profile of shift workers published in the latest issue of Health reports. Men who worked an evening, rotating or irregular shift in 1994/95 had increased odds of having been diagnosed with a chronic condition over a four-year period. For women, a non-standard schedule was not associated with a new diagnosis of chronic conditions during that period. In 2000/01, 30% of men and 26% of women aged 18 to 54 who were employed throughout the year had non-standard schedules. About one-quarter of shift workers reported evening or night shifts. Rotating and irregular shifts were reported more frequently, each accounting for about 4 in 10 of these workers. Whether they had an evening, rotating or irregular shift, the majority of shift workers had no choice. However, men were more likely than women to say that it was a requirement of the job: 65% of men and 53% of women working an evening shift reported that they had to. In contrast, 11% of women, but just 3% of men, working an evening shift did so because they were caring for family. Shift work more common among blue-collar, sales and service workers Shift work was more common in blue-collar or sales and service occupations than in white-collar or clerical jobs. People working fewer than 30 hours a week were more likely to have non-standard schedules, as were those who worked on weekends. The likelihood of working shift decreased with advancing age, possibly because older workers with seniority have more choice in their hours than do younger, less experienced workers. Single or previously married workers were more likely than those who were married to have non-standard schedules. Male workers living in households with children were less likely than those in childless households to work shifts. There was no difference for female workers, which may be, in part, because of women's greater tendency to cite caring for family as their reason for shift work.
that would be great if we were talking about absenteeism. but we're not. we're talking about your claim that men "never" have problems with shift work or working weekends
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/020725/dq020725b-eng.htm Thursday, July 25, 2002 Shift work and health Three out of 10 employed Canadians worked some type of shift in 2000/01. Many shift workers reported problems that ranged from sleep disruption to difficulties with relationships. For most of them, working shift was not a choice, but a requirement of employment. For both sexes, an evening shift in 1994/95 was associated with increases in psychological distress over the following two years, according to a new profile of shift workers published in the latest issue of Health reports. Men who worked an evening, rotating or irregular shift in 1994/95 had increased odds of having been diagnosed with a chronic condition over a four-year period. For women, a non-standard schedule was not associated with a new diagnosis of chronic conditions during that period. In 2000/01, 30% of men and 26% of women aged 18 to 54 who were employed throughout the year had non-standard schedules. About one-quarter of shift workers reported evening or night shifts. Rotating and irregular shifts were reported more frequently, each accounting for about 4 in 10 of these workers. Whether they had an evening, rotating or irregular shift, the majority of shift workers had no choice. However, men were more likely than women to say that it was a requirement of the job: 65% of men and 53% of women working an evening shift reported that they had to. In contrast, 11% of women, but just 3% of men, working an evening shift did so because they were caring for family. Shift work more common among blue-collar, sales and service workers Shift work was more common in blue-collar or sales and service occupations than in white-collar or clerical jobs. People working fewer than 30 hours a week were more likely to have non-standard schedules, as were those who worked on weekends. The likelihood of working shift decreased with advancing age, possibly because older workers with seniority have more choice in their hours than do younger, less experienced workers. Single or previously married workers were more likely than those who were married to have non-standard schedules. Male workers living in households with children were less likely than those in childless households to work shifts. There was no difference for female workers, which may be, in part, because of women's greater tendency to cite caring for family as their reason for shift work.
sam34 wrote: » we're talking about your claim that men "never" have problems with shift work or working weekends
Zulu wrote: » He said men don't have a problem with shift work.. We all understand what he actually means, but you are insistant on taking him literally and are doggedly presuing. Why? To what end? So he accepts not all men never have a problem... whoop-di-doo, his salient point stands. So what's your point? Some people have an issue with shift work & weekend work, some people don't - it's not a gender issue. FFS. This shit wouldn't be tolorated in the ladies lounge... :mad:
sam34 wrote: » its not a gender issue, it never was
if nothing else, its entertaining (to me, i cant speak for others) to watch the wriggling
and i dont think his salient point (presumably that most men are ok with night shifts and weekend work, whereas most women are not) stands...
Zulu wrote: » Then drop it. It's tedious to others and destroys the thread. To me, the point was that "most men are ok with night shifts and weekend work". I didn't extrapolate anything else. CDfm can you confirm please? Was you're intention to imply that women were not ok to work shifts & weekends?
