Mens Rights Thread

iptba · 11-07-2012 4:45pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Naturally it can be contested on the basis of paternity.

If paternity is contested, the person contesting (typically the alleged father) it will have to pay for a court approved DNA test. If either the mother or alleged father refuse to comply, then the court will almost certainly find against them as their refusal will be taken as proof that they are seeking to hide the truth.

Bare in mind this also follows in cases where the alleged father wants to prove that he is the biological father.

The party that loses the paternity contest will often be directed to pay costs for the test if it was paid by the other party, although in practice if it is the mother and she is on LPA, this won't happen.

Shouldn't tests like this really be part of the health system? Anyone, even if you're a millionaire, if they go to their GP can get all sorts of blood tests for free if they are considered necessary.

And of course, many men can find themselves in financial difficulties themselves (e.g. their only income is a State benefit) so seems unfair men are treated differently to women.

The Corinthian · 11-07-2012 4:51pm

iptba wrote: »

And of course, many men can find themselves in financial difficulties themselves (e.g. their only income is a State benefit) so seems unfair men are treated differently to women.

Men are not treated differently in terms of the cost of a DNA test, as a woman would also have to do so if she contested a case.

Where men are treated differently is that, AFAIK, only men have to contest a case; that is a court will take the mothers word on it unless otherwise contested (naturally by the alleged father). As a result the cost de facto falls only onto a man, especially as the mother will rarely be forced to pay it if it turns out that she was wrong.

iptba · 11-07-2012 5:09pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Where men are treated differently is that, AFAIK, only men have to contest a case; that is a court will take the mothers word on it unless otherwise contested (naturally by the alleged father). As a result the cost de facto falls only onto a man, especially as the mother will rarely be forced to pay it if it turns out that she was wrong.

Which seems unfair. The underlying presumption may be that this helps children; however, the man for example could already be supporting more children than the woman is.

The Corinthian · 11-07-2012 5:21pm

iptba wrote: »

Which seems unfair. The underlying presumption may be that this helps children; however, the man for example could already be supporting more children than the woman is.

Not really unfair if costs were awarded against the losing party equally, except they're not.

Using a child to avoid consequences has been around a long time (e.g. Pleading the Belly). Legally it still effectively used today as a means to avoid jail if breaking a court order or even deportation (as occurred with the fraudulent Pamela Izevbekhai case).

The Irish courts are complete suckers for this defense.

Feathers · 11-07-2012 11:52pm

iptba wrote: »

Which seems unfair. The underlying presumption may be that this helps children; however, the man for example could already be supporting more children than the woman is.

Surely it only be presumed to help the children through this set-up if otherwise the mother wouldn't be willing to pay for the test. And ff she wouldn't otherwise be willing to pay, then it seems likely that she's not 100% sure if this man is the father, in which case it definitely shouldn't be the case of 'assume he is unless he challenges it'!

iptba · 12-07-2012 12:08am

Feathers wrote: »

Surely it only be presumed to help the children through this set-up if otherwise the mother wouldn't be willing to pay for the test. And fif she wouldn't otherwise be willing to pay, then it seems likely that she's not 100% sure if this man is the father, in which case it definitely shouldn't be the case of 'assume he is unless he challenges it'!

Not 100% sure what you're saying in the first sentence - think there's a couple of typos/missing words. My point about helping children was the more general point that taking money from a mother is often seen as comparable to taking money from her children and so there can be a tendency to avoid doing it. And then pointing out that taking money from a man could also be judged the same way and perhaps be "worse" if he's supporting more children.

But the second sentence is an interesting point*: if she's sure she knows who the father is, then paying for it is not a gamble for her**; the only circumstance in which it's not a 100% sure bet for her to get the money is if she's not sure if the man is the father. And in that case, there really should be a paternity test. So asking her to pay*** could be used to test to see if she's 100% sure or not.

* I corrected a typo I have presumed is there.

**although this presumes she would be guaranteed to get the money - but if she's right and the test shows he's the father, he will have to pay anyway and if he doesn't pay up, that could be added to the bill of what a court could enforce and so no real gamble (except she might be out of pocket in the short-term, which some people might say she should not have to go through).

*** paying some of the cost might be more realistic?

Feathers · 12-07-2012 8:39am

iptba wrote:

Not 100% sure what you're saying in the first sentence - think there's a couple of typos/missing words. My point about helping children was the more general point that taking money from a mother is often seen as comparable to taking money from her children and so there can be a tendency to avoid doing it. And then pointing out that takinom a man could also be judged the same way and perhaps be "worse" if he's supporting more children.

Sorry, normally good with the old grammar but was typing on a phone!

Yeah, I mistook you to mean that if she didn't go through with pushing for payments because she thought the cost of a paternity test would be prohibitive it could be seen as taking money from her children.

You could possibly have it where if he's proved not to be the father the mother/state pays instead. Do you know are there any other qualifying circumstances a women needs - like proof of a relationship etc. - before the man is seen as 'father until proven otherwise'? Or can they claim any man is the father & its up to him to disprove it?

The Corinthian · 12-07-2012 9:11am

iptba wrote: »

My point about helping children was the more general point that taking money from a mother is often seen as comparable to taking money from her children and so there can be a tendency to avoid doing it. And then pointing out that taking money from a man could also be judged the same way and perhaps be "worse" if he's supporting more children.

Yes, however in the all too common scenario where the mother is on social welfare and the father is employed, courts have a tendency to fall back on Patriarchal stereotypes; the man is a provider, thus it is his responsibility to provide.

It's a common enough prejudice in that many still believe that child maintenance from a father is supposed to cover the costs of the child, when in reality it's only supposed to cover half of the costs as the mother is also financially obliged to cover the costs of the child. Even the courts often tend twoards this prejudice.

So I see where you're coming from, but many judges will conclude that the father can go out and get a second job to cover the shortfall.

iptba · 12-07-2012 5:04pm

Feathers wrote: »

You could possibly have it where if he's proved not to be the father the mother/state pays instead. Do you know are there any other qualifying circumstances a women needs - like proof of a relationship etc. - before the man is seen as 'father until proven otherwise'? Or can they claim any man is the father & its up to him to disprove it?

I'm not expert. I get the impression they can claim as you put it "any man is the father & its up to him to disprove it?", but perhaps somebody else can say.

iptba · 12-07-2012 5:08pm

=The Corinthian wrote: »

It's a common enough prejudice in that many still believe that child maintenance from a father is supposed to cover the costs of the child, when in reality it's only supposed to cover half of the costs as the mother is also financially obliged to cover the costs of the child. Even the courts often tend twoards this prejudice.

I've the figure in my head (not sure the country) that 18% of the salary is the figure often quoted for child maintenance. Multiply that by two and it's 36%, clearly a ridiculous figure. I have heard some people (=fathers) complain about the percentage figure used in comparison to actual costs data suggest, and I think that was even without the doubling up calculation you suggest. (Aside: I'm afraid I can't remember if the figures they presented were for 18% or a different percentage - not sure which country(s) they were from).

The Corinthian wrote: »

So I see where you're coming from, but many judges will conclude that the father can go out and get a second job to cover the shortfall.

Which is interesting in that there are supposed to be limits in how many hours somebody should work in a week. But a reasonable percentage of men end up working more hours than this due to such pressures.

The Corinthian · 12-07-2012 5:28pm

iptba wrote: »

I've the figure in my head (not sure the country) that 18% of the salary is the figure often quoted for child maintenance. Multiply that by two and it's 36%, clearly a ridiculous figure. I have heard some people (=fathers) complain about the percentage figure used in comparison to actual costs data suggest, and I think that was even without the doubling up calculation you suggest.

I think it's Germany you're talking about. There's a sliding scale however, so two children would mean something like 26%, three about 35% and so on. It's quite regulated in that it also takes into account maximums and minimums, the age of the child, as well as other financial factors. Another big difference in somewhere like Germany is that there is far more pressure (and support) on the mother to get a job and support herself, which does not exist in Ireland.

Which is interesting in that there are supposed to be limits in how many hours somebody should work in a week. But a reasonable percentage of men end up working more hours than this due to such pressures.

I suggest you read the Myth of Male Power. In it Farrell deconstructs men's roles in society and concludes that we are essentially seen as 'disposable' - our role is to provide, protect and support others, even if it kills us.

iptba · 12-07-2012 5:33pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think it's Germany you're talking about. There's a sliding scale however, so two children would mean something like 26%, three about 35% and so on. It's quite regulated in that it also takes into account maximums and minimums, the age of the child, as well as other financial factors. Another big difference in somewhere like Germany is that there is far more pressure (and support) on the mother to get a job and support herself, which does not exist in Ireland.

So what are the percentages for Ireland (or another country) or is it not done by percentages?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I suggest you read the Myth of Male Power. In it Farrell deconstructs men's roles in society and concludes that we are essentially seen as 'disposable' - our role is to provide, protect and support others, even if it kills us.

Thanks. I actually bought a copy and never got around to reading it at the time (just read some newspaper coverage). It has now disappeared somewhere in my stuff and I'm not inclined to buy another one given the one I have. But maybe eventually I'll break and buy one.

The Corinthian · 12-07-2012 5:43pm

iptba wrote: »

So what are the percentages for Ireland (or another country) or is it not done by percentages?

It's done on the basis of the judge going through any financial documents presented by both parties and arriving at an equitable solution, with the interests of the child being treated as a priority, in theory.

In practice anything goes, with about the only 'rule' being a maximum figure of €150 p.w. at District court level. As a result, crazy (both low and high) levels are awarded at what appears to be the whims of the judiciary on a regular basis.

Thanks. I actually bought a copy and never got around to reading it at the time (just read some newspaper coverage). It has now disappeared somewhere in my stuff and I'm not inclined to buy another one given the one I have. But maybe eventually I'll break and buy one.

It's a depressing eye-opener.

iptba · 12-07-2012 5:55pm

Not directly related to the last few posts, but talk of Warren Farrell reminded me to mention one thing I just finished reading, which can be read for free. Warren Farrell has also written about how men and women doing different jobs can explain the difference in pay.

I've never studied economics but was able to understand it ok. I like things that aren't just superficial - this was good as it went a bit deeper than the average media coverage of the issue

----
http://www.iea.org.uk/publications/research/should-we-mind-the-gap-gender-pay-differentials-and-public-policy

Should We Mind the Gap? Gender Pay Differentials and Public Policy

J. R. Shackleton 21 Oct 2008

A new book which suggests that discrimination is not causing the gender pay gap
Price: £10.00

download full publication free http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook442pdf.pdf

download executive summary
http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook442pdfSummary.pdf

Differences in the earnings of women and men are increasingly being used to justify regulation of the private affairs of employers and employees. Yet there is little evidence that the 'gender pay gap' is the result of unfair discrimination.

In fact it can be explained by variations in the kinds of job undertaken by men and women, as well as educational and lifestyle choices. Women may favour quality of life and job satisfaction over higher earnings.

The author argues that complete equality of pay is impossible to achieve in a free society of any complexity. Men and women would need to be identical in their qualifications, choice of occupations, career plans and lifestyle choices.

Thus policies that try to impose equality through tighter employment regulation are unlikely to have much impact, and such measures may damage the economic position of both men and women.
2008, ISBN 978 0 255 36604 5, 115pp, PB

SUMMARY: http://www.iea.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/files/upldbook442pdfSummary.pdf

• There is a sizeable gap between the average hourly earnings of
UK men and women working full time: this is the gender pay
gap. The gap has, however, declined over time and is expected
to decline further given demographic trends and changes in
women’s qualifications. It could even go into reverse.

• The view that the UK has a particularly large gender pay gap
by international standards is misleading. The gap is anyway
only one indicator of women’s economic status. Its size is not
necessarily related to other indicators of sex discrimination
and it can increase or decrease for reasons that have nothing
to do with employers’ behaviour.

• The pay gap may partly reflect compensating differentials:
men’s jobs may typically have disadvantages that are reflected
in higher pay. Women report greater job satisfaction than
men.

• There is little evidence of direct discrimination by employers
against women. Discrimination is often inferred from the
unexplained residual in econometric analyses of the causes of
the gender pay gap.

• When attitudes and preferences, as well as objective
characteristics such as work experience and qualifications, are
brought into the picture, however, most of the pay gap can be
explained without reference to discrimination.

• There is a larger gender pay gap for women working part
time. These women tend to work in a narrow range of
occupations; when this is taken into account the ‘part-time
penalty’ shrinks to small proportions.

• Policies to reduce the gender pay gap seem unlikely to have
much impact. The most significant policy, enforcing pay
audits and equal pay reviews across the economy, could cause
damage to the economic position of many men and women,
and increase costs to business.

• There are other pay gaps which can be defined, by ethnicity,
religious belief and disability, for example. Changes in the
size of these gaps, and in more general measures of social
inequality, may be in conflict with changes in the gender pay
gap.

• Following from this, there is now so much variation in
lifestyles and economic behaviour within the male and female
populations that simple comparisons of average male and
female pay are increasingly irrelevant.

• The conditions that would have to be met for a pay gap
between men and women not to exist are impossible to
achieve, although the gap can in principle be positive or
negative.

iptba · 23-07-2012 10:57pm

I thought it was interesting to read the following:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395

Basically, 3 men died taking bullets for their girlfriends at the recent Batman shooting.

I don't believe any women died taking bullets for their boyfriends.

Why do men do this? Are we socialised to be chivalrous?

yawha · 24-07-2012 12:00am

Yeah, we're still very much socialised into a protector/hero role. What's expected and thought of as the norm in relationships is very much ingrained via the role models children see and build their identities from as they grow up.

iptba · 24-07-2012 12:48pm

yawha wrote: »

Yeah, we're still very much socialised into a protector/hero role. What's expected and thought of as the norm in relationships is very much ingrained via the role models children see and build their identities from as they grow up.

Interesting. This would have the effect of advantaging women (as they would be protected) and disadvantaging men (because they can get injured or die). I wonder by what means it works - are men taught women are more valuable than they are in some way.

The Corinthian · 24-07-2012 12:56pm

iptba wrote: »

Why do men do this? Are we socialised to be chivalrous?

Yes (as I'm sure you're aware). As I've suggested before, you should read The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell, as it specifically covers this question.

Pawwed Rig · 24-07-2012 2:53pm

The US is a much more traditional society than many European countries. In many parts for example the expectation is for men to pay for everything for the girl when dating and to treat her like the 'little princess'. Colarado would be one of the more traditional areas of the US. If you think there is discrimination against men here the US is far worse in many ways.
Having said that this is more of a feel rehabilitaion story and I doubt there is very much evidence to support that they actually shielded the girls. More likely it is people trying to come to terms with a tragic situation.

matthew8 · 25-07-2012 3:44am

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The US is a much more traditional society than many European countries. In many parts for example the expectation is for men to pay for everything for the girl when dating and to treat her like the 'little princess'. Colarado would be one of the more traditional areas of the US. If you think there is discrimination against men here the US is far worse in many ways.
Having said that this is more of a feel rehabilitaion story and I doubt there is very much evidence to support that they actually shielded the girls. More likely it is people trying to come to terms with a tragic situation.

The US may be more traditional, but I think men have it easier there than here because of a total lack of feminism.

The Corinthian · 25-07-2012 8:10am

matthew8 wrote: »

The US may be more traditional, but I think men have it easier there than here because of a total lack of feminism.

What makes you say that the US has a total lack of feminism?

Woodward · 25-07-2012 9:44am

matthew8 wrote: »

The US may be more traditional, but I think men have it easier there than here because of a total lack of feminism.

Um what?! Have you not seen that Obama is introducing Title IX into STEM areas in university to limit that amount of guys that can enter?

Pawwed Rig · 25-07-2012 10:12am

matthew8 wrote: »

The US may be more traditional, but I think men have it easier there than here because of a total lack of feminism.

The grass isn't always greener. You can get a much higher quality of life in the US than you maybe able to get here but things can be alot worse too. There are very few safety nets for people when things start going wrong. The divorce rate is huge and similar to here the man usually gets the worse part of that deal because 'kids need their Mommy'. It is not unusual for a man to have to hold down 2 jobs to meet the burdens of child support awards to kids they have no automatic rights to.

Funny when I was living in the US I was shocked at the injustice of their property tax system where it is based on valuation. A family could live in a house for generations but then the prices in the local area go up and they are forced to move out as they cannot afford the rates. Looks like we are going to adopt the exact same system...........go figure

matthew8 · 25-07-2012 12:49pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

What makes you say that the US has a total lack of feminism?

If you tried to introduce the idea of gender quotas for political parties it would be laughed out of the building.

The Corinthian · 25-07-2012 12:57pm

matthew8 wrote: »

If you tried to introduce the idea of gender quotas for political parties it would be laughed out of the building.

And from that single example you can extrapolate that the US has "a total lack of feminism"?

I might agree with you, although even there it's open to debate, were you to suggest that the US has "(significantly) less feminism" influencing their society, but "total lack" ignores existing laws and policies that have been influenced in the US as a result of feminism over the last thirty years.

I suggest that you are arriving at a rather extreme false conclusion.

matthew8 · 25-07-2012 2:02pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

And from that single example you can extrapolate that the US has "a total lack of feminism"?

I might agree with you, although even there it's open to debate, were you to suggest that the US has "(significantly) less feminism" influencing their society, but "total lack" ignores existing laws and policies that have been influenced in the US as a result of feminism over the last thirty years.

I suggest that you are arriving at a rather extreme false conclusion.

Total was pushing it a bit, but it's not mainstream at all.

Piliger · 25-07-2012 2:47pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

What makes you say that the US has a total lack of feminism?

That is just nutz. Feminism and women's rights are incredibly strong in the US.
The issue of quotas is not a reflection of feminism but of common sense overcoming a daft idea.

Ash.J.Williams · 25-07-2012 2:51pm

As of yesterday i'm a legal guardian of my child! what a long expensive process for a basic human right!

iptba · 25-07-2012 3:16pm

If we move away from the US vs Ireland angle, I'm afraid I don't buy that feminism is not responsible for the introduction of gender quotas.

It's a result of a feminist-type analysis that there is seen for a need for them.

And the reason they actually happen I believe is because people especially men can be afraid to challenge feminist ideas publicly because of the ad hominem attacks that can result. So bad ideas can be pushed through because people are afraid to speak out about them.

The Corinthian · 25-07-2012 3:20pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

As of yesterday i'm a legal guardian of my child! what a long expensive process for a basic human right!

Congratulations! And now the bad news...

Firstly, you can lose it. Of course in practice this is incredibly difficult to do as judges are extremely reluctant to do so, however there are a number of circumstances where it can happen. As such, I'd suggest you seek some professional advice on this so to avoid these circumstances being engineered in the future.

Secondly, guardianship affords you limited rights and in the near future those rights are likely to become even more limited.

Presently guardianship gives you to block any attempt to bring your child outside of the state or report it as abduction if it is done so without your consent (although any objections you may have can be overruled in court). It also, importantly means that your child cannot be legally adopted by a third party without your consent.

Where it comes to your legal right to determine your child's legal and religious upbringing, things get more fuzzy. In theory you have that right, but in practice the courts will generally side with the custodial parent (the mother).

Additionally, if the discussion paper on guardianship reform that was released last year is anything to go by, future 'reform' of guardianship will remove the legal right to determine your child's legal and religious upbringing, instead relegating it to a consultative role (i.e. you have a right to have your opinion ignored). This 'reform' will incidentally also affect the guardianship rights of married fathers.

So, congratulations, but don't overestimate the benefits of guardianship rights. In many respects, winning it is often a Pyrrhic victory.

Ash.J.Williams · 25-07-2012 3:28pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Congratulations! And now the bad news...

Firstly, you can lose it. Of course in practice this is incredibly difficult to do as judges are extremely reluctant to do so, however there are a number of circumstances where it can happen. As such, I'd suggest you seek some professional advice on this so to avoid these circumstances being engineered in the future.

Secondly, guardianship affords you limited rights and in the near future those rights are likely to become even more limited.

Presently guardianship gives you to block any attempt to bring your child outside of the state or report it as abduction if it is done so without your consent (although any objections you may have can be overruled in court). It also, importantly means that your child cannot be legally adopted by a third party without your consent.

Where it comes to your legal right to determine your child's legal and religious upbringing, things get more fuzzy. In theory you have that right, but in practice the courts will generally side with the custodial parent (the mother).

Additionally, if the discussion paper on guardianship reform that was released last year is anything to go by, future 'reform' of guardianship will remove the legal right to determine your child's legal and religious upbringing, instead relegating it to a consultative role (i.e. you have a right to have your opinion ignored). This 'reform' will incidentally also affect the guardianship rights of married fathers.

So, congratulations, but don't overestimate the benefits of guardianship rights. In many respects, winning it is often a Pyrrhic victory.

oh i know! on one hand it felt great but on the other hand i'm well aware who calls the shots! for me it's merely an acknowledgement, and at least my child can have some comfort from that too, that i'm there.

py2006 · 25-07-2012 8:45pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

As of yesterday i'm a legal guardian of my child! what a long expensive process for a basic human right!

Congrats, is there a background to this story that you would care to share? Or has it been spoken about on here already?

Ash.J.Williams · 26-07-2012 1:52pm

py2006 wrote: »

Congrats, is there a background to this story that you would care to share? Or has it been spoken about on here already?

I have spoken about it in the unmarried fathers thread. It can be pain in the *** being a single dad who does not get on with the ex. My advice to anyone in this situation who wants to be an active father is to remain calm at all times, no matter how bad things are. Take whatever crap is thrown at you on the chin, and keep up the legal pressure. In tandem with this when you have access make the most of it, as it's impossible hard to deny a parent access to a child who is visibly happy with his/her father.

The Corinthian · 26-07-2012 2:52pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

In tandem with this when you have access make the most of it, as it's impossible hard to deny a parent access to a child who is visibly happy with his/her father.

This can be very difficult if the mother is actively obstructing access and/or practising parental alienation.

Most upsetting of all it can leave the child in a confused position where they clearly know they cannot mention the father in front of the mother and so begin to secretly ask grandparents and others about him behind her back.

Ash.J.Williams · 26-07-2012 2:54pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

This can be very difficult if the mother is actively obstructing access and/or practising parental alienation.

Most upsetting of all it can leave the child in a confused position where they clearly know they cannot mention the father in front of the mother and so begin to secretly ask grandparents and others about him behind her back.

that is true, and i am thankful i got some kind of resolution while still an infant.

The Corinthian · 26-07-2012 3:18pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

that is true, and i am thankful i got some kind of resolution while still an infant.

It's not a resolution though, and that's the problem.

Guardianship and an access order look good on paper, but the former is very limited in scope and the latter is seldom enforced.

Even where the father was married and is a guardian from the child's birth, access can be obstructed by the mother with little or not hope of a judge ever doing anything other than blustering at her - few mothers have ever ended up in jail for breaking an access order, while fathers frequently face imprisonment for breaking maintenance orders.

And parental alienation is eminently possible if the custodial parent chooses to manipulate the child into believing that the father is not present not because the mother is blocking access, but out of rejection. Skewed accounts fed to a small child can have devastating psychological effects that can last well into adulthood, even if the child later is able to figure out they were essentially lied to.

Unfortunately, as things stand - and as you pointed out yourself - mothers are the ones who call the shots. In the worst case scenarios, this can lead to fathers fighting a constant legal war with little hope beyond Pyrrhic victories, often giving up as the financial and psychological toll builds up.

Even in more cooperative relationships, I've sometimes seen bribery and financial exploitation become the norm, whereby the father ends up effectively paying the mother for access to his children. How many fathers end up having the child stay with them three of four nights a week, but are terrified to suggest that perhaps maintenance should be lowered from when the child was full-time with the mother, for fear of the consequences?

It's unfortunately the product of a system designed to protect neither the rights of the child nor the father, but the traditional role of women and one that has been conveniently ignored by Feminist groups who all too often claim to represent equality and oppose those traditional roles.

For your sake, I hope that your getting guardianship results in the mother accepting your role, rather than simply adapting her tactics to obstruct you in other ways.

Ash.J.Williams · 26-07-2012 3:31pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's not a resolution though, and that's the problem.

Guardianship and an access order look good on paper, but the former is very limited in scope and the latter is seldom enforced.

Even where the father was married and is a guardian from the child's birth, access can be obstructed by the mother with little or not hope of a judge ever doing anything other than blustering at her - few mothers have ever ended up in jail for breaking an access order, while fathers frequently face imprisonment for breaking maintenance orders.

And parental alienation is eminently possible if the custodial parent chooses to manipulate the child into believing that the father is not present not because the mother is blocking access, but out of rejection. Skewed accounts fed to a small child can have devastating psychological effects that can last well into adulthood, even if the child later is able to figure out they were essentially lied to.

Unfortunately, as things stand - and as you pointed out yourself - mothers are the ones who call the shots. In the worst case scenarios, this can lead to fathers fighting a constant legal war with little hope beyond Pyrrhic victories, often giving up as the financial and psychological toll builds up.

Even in more cooperative relationships, I've sometimes seen bribery and financial exploitation become the norm, whereby the father ends up effectively paying the mother for access to his children. How many fathers end up having the child stay with them three of four nights a week, but are terrified to suggest that perhaps maintenance should be lowered from when the child was full-time with the mother, for fear of the consequences?

It's unfortunately the product of a system designed to protect neither the rights of the child nor the father, but the traditional role of women and one that has been conveniently ignored by Feminist groups who all too often claim to represent equality and oppose those traditional roles.

For your sake, I hope that your getting guardianship results in the mother accepting your role, rather than simply adapting her tactics to obstruct you in other ways.

I am certain this will happen. I also believe a move to another area is likely in the future too. (a different provence)

The Corinthian · 26-07-2012 4:03pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

I am certain this will happen.

Well, the child is always the one to suffer when this happens. Either they never learn the truth, in which case they end up feeling rejected by their father. Or they do, in which case they end up feeling betrayed by the mother. Or they end up somewhere in-between and nothing is ever resolved for them.

iptba · 27-07-2012 2:03am

Thought this was interesting (from Friday's Irish Times):
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2012/0727/1224320883346.html

The rate of youth unemployment rose by 74 per cent between the 2006 and 2011 censuses, with 39 per cent of those aged 15-24 recorded as being without work in April last year.

Unemployment among men in this age category almost doubled in that period to 50,440 from 26,448, meaning the unemployment rate among young males stood at 45 per cent last April.

Among women in the same age group, unemployment increased from 20,674 in 2006 to 31,713 – yielding an unemployment rate of 32 per cent.

yawha · 27-07-2012 4:33am

It'd be more interesting to look at the male/female divide in terms of area, level of education, area of education, and socio-economic status, I think.

iptba · 29-07-2012 10:02pm

yawha wrote: »

It'd be more interesting to look at the male/female divide in terms of area, level of education, area of education, and socio-economic status, I think.

According to the Irish Independent:

Unemployment among women was lower than for men across almost all socio-economic groups.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/youth-unemployment-rate-hit-almost-40pc-last-year-3181380.html

iptba · 07-08-2012 2:23am

From Tuesday's Irish Times:

Are we living in a girls' world?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0807/1224321615473.html

This is about children specifically.

Woodward · 07-08-2012 9:52am

iptba wrote: »

From Tuesday's Irish Times:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2012/0807/1224321615473.html

This is about children specifically.

Great article. I was one of those who complained to tesco about the folders

Piliger · 07-08-2012 8:14pm

Quite incredible. It is indicative however of how those who are producing this stuff have total confidence they can get away with it.

Can you imagine what would happen if the reverse was in these images ? All HELL would break loose in the media, in parliament and in the courts.

Blisterman · 15-08-2012 10:24am

I think a lot of the reason the men's rights movement isn't taken seriously, is because a lot of it is over petty things, which barely affect anyone, rather than actual important things such as child access rights.

So far in this thread, we've had a cherry picked example of a guy in America being told to leave a bookstore, men dying for their girlfriends at the batman shooting, a binder with "boys are smelly", an ad which "only" showed a male abuser and differing conditions in prison.

Pawwed Rig · 15-08-2012 10:33am

Child access rights were discussed in detail in the previous thread to this one along with costs of insurance among many other topics

The Corinthian · 15-08-2012 10:38am

Blisterman wrote: »

I think a lot of the reason the men's rights movement isn't taken seriously, is because a lot of it is over petty things, which barely affect anyone, rather than actual important things such as child access rights.

Out of interest, would you consider;

someone being denied access to a book-store solely due to their gender,
the social conditioning that causes one human being to sacrifice their lives, based solely on gender,
the acceptability of framing one gender in negative and insulting ways,
the portrayal of only one gender as 'evil' or 'criminal', or
the difference in treatment in the penal system based only on gender

...to be "petty things, which barely affect anyone"? I would have thought that at least some of these are pretty fundamental human rights in a society that strives towards equality.

If you do, ask yourself; why are they "petty things"? That other things may be a higher priority, there's no doubt, but to relegate them to "petty" is a bit of an exaggerated reaction and so priorities are not a sufficient excuse for this.

Might it be that you feel that as men we should "take them on the chin", like a 'real man' should? If not why? Ask yourself.

iptba · 15-08-2012 1:30pm

Blisterman wrote: »

I think a lot of the reason the men's rights movement isn't taken seriously, is because a lot of it is over petty things, which barely affect anyone, rather than actual important things such as child access rights.

So far in this thread, we've had a cherry picked example of a guy in America being told to leave a bookstore, men dying for their girlfriends at the batman shooting, a binder with "boys are smelly", an ad which "only" showed a male abuser and differing conditions in prison.

Here are a couple of links for the sorts of things Men's Rights Activists might be interested in: http://web.archive.org/web/20110304160132/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

http://en.wikimannia.org/Men's_movement .

Some individual points may seem petty until they are shown to be examples of a bigger problem; or else, sometimes they may not be good examples of much. The same could be said about feminism but in contrast, feminism is take seriously, so I'm not sure that's the reason men's rights isn't taken seriously.

Blisterman · 15-08-2012 1:45pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

Out of interest, would you consider;
someone being denied access to a book-store solely due to their gender,

the social conditioning that causes one human being to sacrifice their lives, based solely on gender,

the acceptability of framing one gender in negative and insulting ways,

the portrayal of only one gender as 'evil' or 'criminal', or

the difference in treatment in the penal system based only on gender

...to be "petty things, which barely affect anyone"? I would have thought that at least some of these are pretty fundamental human rights in a society that strives towards equality.

If you do, ask yourself; why are they "petty things"? That other things may be a higher priority, there's no doubt, but to relegate them to "petty" is a bit of an exaggerated reaction and so priorities are not a sufficient excuse for this.

Might it be that you feel that as men we should "take them on the chin", like a 'real man' should? If not why? Ask yourself.

A: That was a single incident involving one person on the other side of the world. Hardly indicative of any kind of institutional discrimination.
B: That was their individual choice, and there's absolutely no indication that gender was involved. I'm sure I could find cases where the sexes were reversed.
C: It's a joke. I hardly believe that the creators of that have any ill will towards men. I do agree, there would be controversy if the sexes were reversed, but I'd still think that was a ridiculous overreaction.

There was only one person in that ad. You could just as easily say it's portraying white people, tall people, irish people, people with blue eyes, etc as criminals. They're hardly going to have a montage of people of all gender, races, nationalities abusing kids in the interests of political correctness.
E: Campaigning that imprisoned criminals are made more comfortable is not going to convince many people to join in the men's rights movement.

So, yes, I do feel these are petty issues, and somebody would have to be extremely over-sensitive to feel any real offence at these issues.

Resorting to hyperbole and hysterical language is not going to help anyone.

Blisterman · 15-08-2012 1:52pm

iptba wrote: »

Here are a couple of links for the sorts of things Men's Rights Activists might be interested in: http://web.archive.org/web/20110304160132/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masculism

http://en.wikimannia.org/Men's_movement .

Some individual points may seem petty until they are shown to be examples of a bigger problem; or else, sometimes they may not be good examples of much. The same could be said about feminism but in contrast, feminism is take seriously, so I'm not sure that's the reason men's rights isn't taken seriously.

To say that discrimination against men is a "big problem" in today's world, compared to discrimination against women, is either naive or deliberately contrarian.

Mens Rights Thread

Comments