In what ways are men discriminated against?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Health insurance is based on how risky you are. Its still based on risk. Thats the point. The more likely you are to cost the company the more you pay. Men are a risk to a car insurance company. Thats how it works.

Your health insurance is also based on your age. The older you are the more you pay. Is that because you are at risk? Or because they are ageist?

Health insutrance is not based on how risky you are and neither is PRSI. With health insurance we have community rating. An older person pays the same as a younger person. An older person is more likely to cost the company extra but that doesn't matter as everyone is treated the same. (This was one of the reasons BUPA left the Irish market) Which is my point. It is based on risk when it discriminates against the man but community rating when it might discriminate against someone else. Hence the purpose of the thread.

Anyway we can agree to differ as we are taking over the thread here and my responses are just going to be the same point over and over again

Well I stand corrected and apologise. Must learn more about insurance or ill be done when they see me coming through their large shop windows!! :-S

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

What the hell does a pregnant women in the work place have in common with car insurance?? That is ridiculous to even make a comparison.

Not at all. Maternity leave costs businesses a lot of money; hiring temporary staff for someone who may well not return, loss of productivity and knowledge - you're better off not hiring someone in that statistical 'danger zone' in the first place. Of course, to do so is illegal, but if you seem to have no problem with companies discriminating against men to save some money, then what's good for the gander should be good for the goose and so such laws banning such practices should be dropped.

Also a gym/swimming pool area is quite different to a golf club. I doubt many men walk around playing golf in their swimwear. I have no problem with unisex gyms/pools but there are people out there who would prefer not to be so exposed in front of the opposite sex. The reasons for wanting an all female gym would be quite different to the reasons behind an all male golf club....

An argument used against women joining golf clubs, back in the day, was that it would change the atmosphere and some of the (male) members would feel "uncomfortable". So sorry, unless you want to dictate to men what we can and cannot be uncomfortable about, then you're out of luck.

I never said all men are rapists or used it as an argument.

I never said you did, but making that presumption that a man is guilty of being one until proven innocent, effectively falls into that category.

As I said above I would be wary of my children around both...excuse me for wanting to stay safe!!

Protection of the innocent is always excusable - until you are willing to do it at the expense of another innocent. So no, I do not excuse you.

I also do not agree with the whole underage sex law. I do agree that if both people are underage they should both be held accountable for their actions. Who made that law?

Are you suggesting that because it mitigates against men, that women have no business interfering with it? Is this a case of "I'm all right Jill"?

Wow to that last statement.... I disagree with you im wrong. I agree with you im still wrong.


And also ill protect my children how I feel right. Im not saying I would start ringing a bell and pointing fingers. But I would be quietly wary of strangers (men and women) Im well within my rights to do so.

Think ill just leave at this. Not really happy about being accused of thinking all men are rapists or being told I am wrong in how I would protect my children.

Goodnight

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Wow to that last statement.... I disagree with you im wrong. I agree with you im still wrong.

You agreed then asked who made that law, which following up from your previous related statement would end in you concluding that it was a law written by men (thus their responsibility). That is what I disagreed with.

And also ill protect my children how I feel right. Im not saying I would start ringing a bell and pointing fingers. But I would be quietly wary of strangers (men and women) Im well within my rights to do so.

As long as you don't trample the rights of others to do so. That's often the problem with people who feel they can do whatever they like for a cause they think is just, which is why societies generally have, or should have, laws that will limit your 'right' to do so.

Think ill just leave at this. Not really happy about being accused of thinking all men are rapists or being told I am wrong in how I would protect my children.

Walking away offended is always a good way to avoid unpleasant truths, is it not?

Yeh you're totally right. I think all men are rapists and pedophiles and should be castrated at birth.....

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Yeh you're totally right. I think all men are rapists and pedophiles and should be castrated at birth.....

Not what I said. You've given a justification of sexist prejudiced behaviour and used child safety as your excuse to do so. That does not mean that you think all men are rapists, it just means you used a variation on the old 'all men are rapists' argument - that you believe that all men are potential rapists enough for you to discriminate against them, "for the good of your children".

Do you use profiling for any other groups that you need to protect your children against? Blacks? Jews? Or is it just men you single out?

How dare you!!!! How ****ing dare you!! If you feel its ok to leave your children with strangers then that is your decision. But do not dare tell me how I keep my child safe is wrong. Or insinuate that I would be racist because of it.

More than ever we are told to be vigilant in protecting our children. It is common news every day that children are going missing and if I choose not to leave my child with a stranger or am that bit more protective of them that is my choice.

gordon_gekko wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

How dare you!!!! How ****ing dare you!! If you feel its ok to leave your children with strangers then that is your decision. But do not dare tell me how I keep my child safe is wrong. Or insinuate that I would be racist because of it.

More than ever we are told to be vigilant in protecting our children. It is common news every day that children are going missing and if I choose not to leave my child with a stranger or am that bit more protective of them that is my choice.

check out the faux indignation overdrive

Sorry but I dont take kindly to being told how I care for my child is wrong or being questioned about racism......

dearg lady wrote: »

If anyone chose to open a men only gym I would also see no problem with so don't dare quote me and say 'bullcrap'

I call bull when I see bull. The fact is that a lot of women object to men only clubs but don't see the irony when defending women only clubs/hours/sections. When objecting to a statement it is customary to quote it for context - you don't need to take it so personally - it's certainly not meant personally.

Orion wrote: »

Sul wrote: »

Your health insurance is also based on your age. The older you are the more you pay. Is that because you are at risk? Or because they are ageist?

It's not age based - that's what community rating is for. Everyone pays the same. This is the reason BUPA pulled out of Ireland as it had to compensate VHIn for having an older demographic.

Thats 3 times ive been told that and ive apologised for my mistake... Anybody else want to tell me?

Sul wrote: »

I never said men were a threat. I said I could understand some parents position with regards to their children.

You're backtracking now. You actually said:

Sul wrote: »

As for the whole minding children issue well I dont think its really discrimination its just being safe.

You're clearly agreeing with those parents there, not simply understanding their position - I can understand their position too, but I can also state that it is both bigoted and mistaken.

Orion wrote: »

It's not age based - that's what community rating is for. Everyone pays the same. This is the reason BUPA pulled out of Ireland as it had to compensate VHIn for having an older demographic.

Interestingly women in some countries pay higher premiums than men for health insurance. This is because statistically women avail of doctors and medical treatment far more often than men and thus cost health insurance companies much more. I know they do not get charged more in Ireland, no doubt due to the cries of sexual discrimination that would inevitably come with such a move.

Sul wrote: »

Seriously???!! Now you are just nit picking. NOWHERE in that sentence are the words 'men are a threat', you are just reading what you want to read.

So treating men in such a discriminatory fashion so as to "just being safe" is not because they represent a threat? If they represent no threat, why bring up safety?

Men, women, strangers, there are a lot of reasons in the world to protect your child. As I said I dont walk around ringing a bell and sticking labels on people but I keep my guard. There is nothing wrong with that.

There is when it is based on nothing more than ill-advised prejudice and we are not talking about someone being 'on their guard' with regards to "men, women, strangers" only men in particular.

One can suggest that they will 'be on their guard' in the company of travellers or blacks with the same logic; statistically they are more likely to be criminals, ergo if you find yourself in their company then you can justify being 'on your guard'. Doesn't make you any less bigoted to do so if you do so for that reason.

It is this type of bigotry that means that I, as a man, am not allowed to sit next to children on many airlines unless related to them (women have no such restrictions) or why men simply do not get employed as primary school teachers any more and ultimately one reason why family law, with regards to children, is so biased against us.

So there's a lot wrong with it.

eviltwin wrote: »

I think men do have their own battles to fight re equality but they don't seem to have the same passion to fight them as women do. Most men I know would give a list of things they feel are unfair but won't fight them. Women weren't just given the rights we have, we had to fight long and hard for them. If men could get together and really push for their rights things would move quicker.

I'd agree with this unfortunately. Outside of bellyaching on the Internet, like this, men really do not appear to be motivated at all. The few movements out there seem to be father's rights related and generally populated by only those who are affected directly, with only minor levels of support from without.

Of course, it does not help that equality bodies seem not to believe that there is even an issue with men's rights or that they are often dominated by feminist groups that are at best indifferent or even hostile to those issues, but even that does not excuse the complete lack of actual action by men.

I do think that 'bellyaching' does serve an important purpose in that it educates people to the fact that these issues exist; one of the big problems is that many still deny they do. However, there is a point (long past, IMO) when something more needs to be done.

After all, with the proposed reforms on guardianship (which will effectively remove all guardianship powers from both married and unmarried fathers) and gender quotas in politics further discriminating against men, the situation is not going to get better, only worse.