Is the Western World anti-man?

conorhal · 20-08-2015 01:21PM

Is the Western World anti-man?

I'd say no. It's anti-human.

Every biological reality and social institution has been deconstructed to suit the new ideology, hyper agressive individualistic consumerism.
Nothing can be allowed to stand in the way of profit, not family, not children and not a work life balance.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 01:41PM

psinno wrote: »

Only for fathers.

One of the core tenets of legislation is that it must be practical. The idea that an unmarried father is deemed the automatic legal guardian by virtue of assumed biological parentage is simply impractical. That's not sexist, it's an acknowledgment of basic biology - women can give birth, men can not. The law must balance the rights of the mother against the rights of the father, and legislators have no choice but to take essential basic biology into account and consider legal guardianship within this context. You cannot bestow gender blind equal rights when both parties are intrinsically and biologically different.

Failure to recognise this essential biological difference is just numpty territory, and this argument has been taken out and played out on Boards, flogged to death, thrown back and taken out again, flogged to death and still we get people who try to argue that the argument in the pursuit of gender equality has more merit and should carry more weight than acknowledging the most basic biological differences between men and women. That's why these stupid "laws in isolation" just don't work. They're not even intellectual arguments any more. They're the complete opposite at this point tbh.

Is that any different with married parents or people in a long term relationship?

Yes, the husband is assumed to be the biological parent and therefore the legal guardian if he is married to the child's mother. Long term relationships where the parents are not married are subject to the criteria above.

Fatherhood always has a degree of uncertainty without genetic testing.

Sure does.

The Corinthian · 20-08-2015 01:45PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One of the core tenets of legislation is that it must be practical. The idea that an unmarried father is deemed the automatic legal guardian by virtue of assumed biological parentage is simply impractical.

You're still confused. Even if the father's parentage is legally confirmed, this law does not afford him any rights unless he lived with the mother for a year.

Biological parentage is a non issue here.

newport2 · 20-08-2015 01:46PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The idea that an unmarried father is deemed the automatic legal guardian by virtue of assumed biological parentage is simply impractical.

Is an unmarried father deemed automatically liable for support by virtue of assumed biological parentage? Genuine question, I don't know if it's the case or not.

The Corinthian · 20-08-2015 01:49PM

newport2 wrote: »

Is an unmarried father deemed automatically liable for support by virtue of assumed biological parentage? Genuine question, I don't know if it's the case or not.

Christ, down the rabbit-hole we go...

There is no automatic presumption of paternity (unless married). It can either be decided through agreement or through the courts.

But if paternity is legally established (or not challenged), then the father is financially liable.

This is completely separate from guardianship which affords rights.

Carlos Orange · 20-08-2015 01:52PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You cannot bestow gender blind equal rights when both parties are intrinsically and biologically different.

Aka fathers are inherently less parents than mothers.

newport2 · 20-08-2015 01:52PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Christ, down the rabbit-hole we go...

There is no automatic presumption of paternity (unless married). It can either be decided through agreement or through the courts.

But if paternity is legally established (or not challenged), then the father is financially liable.

This is completely separate from guardianship which affords rights.

Come back out of that rabbit hole now, I'm not going down it with you.

I don't know much about this area of the law, thanks for answering my question.

newport2 · 20-08-2015 01:55PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You cannot bestow gender blind equal rights when both parties are intrinsically and biologically different.

Try using that line in an area where women are deemed to be at a disadvantage.....

K-9 · 20-08-2015 01:55PM

newport2 wrote: »

Is an unmarried father deemed automatically liable for support by virtue of assumed biological parentage? Genuine question, I don't know if it's the case or not.

There's no statutory body that will chase him for it just because he's an unmarried father. There was an attempt at one but it was largely ineffective and toothless.

Parents usually come to an agreement or else the mother applies to the court.

I don't know if a father can apply to court to get it officially recognised.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 01:55PM

newport2 wrote: »

Is an unmarried father deemed automatically liable for support by virtue of assumed biological parentage? Genuine question, I don't know if it's the case or not.

Not as far as I'm aware, no, though I will admit The Corinthian is more well versed in this area than I am, I hadn't looked at the Act in a while, so I'd have to get clarification on some of the points being raised here with regard to guardianship, maintenance and access and so on.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 20-08-2015 01:58PM

newport2 wrote: »

Try using that line in an area where women are deemed to be at a disadvantage.....

This is where it becomes dangerous, for eg Sweden lowering the physical test standard for women to join frontline fire services.

One eyed Jack · 20-08-2015 01:59PM

newport2 wrote: »

Try using that line in an area where women are deemed to be at a disadvantage.....

Why wouldn't I?

Could you give me an example of what you're thinking of so I can better understand what you mean by that?

Daith · 20-08-2015 02:08PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

But if paternity is legally established (or not challenged), then the father is financially liable.

This is completely separate from guardianship which affords rights.

I'm curious. Does the father (who isn't living with the mother) still need to pay maintenance if another person is assigned the guardian?

hatrickpatrick · 20-08-2015 02:11PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why wouldn't I?

Could you give me an example of what you're thinking of so I can better understand what you mean by that?

I'll chime in here: Women can get pregnant, men can't. Regardless of who looks after the kids, pregnancy especially as childbirth draws near, will probably result in having to take some amount of time off from work. Ergo, it should be fair to discriminate against women of child-bearing age when interviewing applicants for a job.

Now of course that's complete bullsh!t, and if someone made that argument they'd rightfully be slaughtered for it. But it's no different to the argument you're making. Once a child is born, there's no reason fathers' legal standing should be any different to that of mothers. The child is no longer in the womb. Unless you're claiming that women automatically make better parents, there's no argument for not affording the biological father and the biological mother equal footing from the moment of birth.

Also, any questions over paternity can be easily solved by including DNA testing in such a law. That's the easiest "problem" you've come up with to solve.

newport2 · 20-08-2015 02:12PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why wouldn't I?

Could you give me an example of what you're thinking of so I can better understand what you mean by that?

Well if a discussion was in place regarding the percentage of male vs female workers in senior roles at certain stages of their careers and significantly more male ones were, the point would probably be made that a lot of women - by choice or not - take time out of their careers to have children and that this has an impact on overall figures. If someone said at this point "You cannot bestow gender blind equal rights when both parties are intrinsically and biologically different." there would be uproar. No equal rights for women because they are biologically the ones who have children? Unacceptable. But here we are with the situation reversed and it's ok to say no equal rights for men because of the way they are biologically.

hatrickpatrick · 20-08-2015 02:14PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

One of the core tenets of legislation is that it must be practical. The idea that an unmarried father is deemed the automatic legal guardian by virtue of assumed biological parentage is simply impractical. That's not sexist, it's an acknowledgment of basic biology - women can give birth, men can not. The law must balance the rights of the mother against the rights of the father, and legislators have no choice but to take essential basic biology into account and consider legal guardianship within this context. You cannot bestow gender blind equal rights when both parties are intrinsically and biologically different.

Once birth is given, why shouldn't they have legal rights? Do a paternity test and automatically ascribe gender-blind parental rights to whoever the father turns out to be. This would actually come with an advantage as it would prevent fathers from abandoning their kids.

Failure to recognise this essential biological difference is just numpty territory, and this argument has been taken out and played out on Boards, flogged to death, thrown back and taken out again, flogged to death and still we get people who try to argue that the argument in the pursuit of gender equality has more merit and should carry more weight than acknowledging the most basic biological differences between men and women. That's why these stupid "laws in isolation" just don't work. They're not even intellectual arguments any more. They're the complete opposite at this point tbh.

Explain how after a child is born, the biological differences between male and female reproduction are at all relevant?

Yes, the husband is assumed to be the biological parent and therefore the legal guardian if he is married to the child's mother. Long term relationships where the parents are not married are subject to the criteria above.

I'd abolish that as well, tbh. Whoever's DNA the child matches should be considered to be the biological father, with the same exceptions in place for surrogacy etc as are in place for the mother's biological connection being waived under those circumstances. It's hardly rocket science.

jimgoose · 20-08-2015 02:14PM

If the Western World is anti-man (and I can't, in all probity Minister, say that I've noticed, but of course that's more if it!

) then it's just going to have find something good and solid and take a running fcuk at it. I'm coming, and Hell's coming with me. :cool:

K-9 · 20-08-2015 02:17PM

Daith wrote: »

I'm curious. Does the father (who isn't living with the mother) still need to pay maintenance if another person is assigned the guardian?

Yes, only on adoption does he forego that.

Makes sense as manu unmarried fathers will tell you it isn't that relevant in day to day matters. Its still important to have though.

hatrickpatrick · 20-08-2015 02:20PM

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, only on adoption does he forego that.

Makes sense as manu unmarried fathers will tell you it isn't that relevant in day to day matters. Its still important to have though.

So it "makes sense" that biological fathers have automatic responsibilities but no automatic rights?

K-9 · 20-08-2015 02:23PM

newport2 wrote: »

Well if a discussion was in place regarding the percentage of male vs female workers in senior roles at certain stages of their careers and significantly more male ones were, the point would probably be made that a lot of women - by choice or not - take time out of their careers to have children and that this has an impact on overall figures. If someone said at this point "You cannot bestow gender blind equal rights when both parties are intrinsically and biologically different." there would be uproar. No equal rights for women because they are biologically the ones who have children? Unacceptable. But here we are with the situation reversed and it's ok to say no equal rights for men because of the way they are biologically.

I wonder how much analysis has been done on that. Has the data on women with no children and men with none been compared.

Are we dealing in like for like comparisons or is the ower pay due to maternity leave truthiness.

Daith · 20-08-2015 02:24PM

K-9 wrote: »

Yes, only on adoption does he forego that.

Does he get a say if the child is put up for adoption if he's recognized as the biological father but not the guardian?

K-9 · 20-08-2015 02:28PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So it "makes sense" that biological fathers have automatic responsibilities but no automatic rights?

That would be a jump to a conclusion patrick.

Guardianship isn't that important in day to day matters so it follows it wouldn't effect child payments for day to day matters.

A mother maarying another man would be a material change for me. I suppose long term cohabitation would come under that too.

K-9 · 20-08-2015 02:30PM

Daith wrote: »

Does he get a say if the child is put up for adoption if he's recognized as the biological father but not the guardian?

AFAIK consent is needed.

The Corinthian · 20-08-2015 02:31PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not as far as I'm aware, no, though I will admit The Corinthian is more well versed in this area than I am, I hadn't looked at the Act in a while, so I'd have to get clarification on some of the points being raised here with regard to guardianship, maintenance and access and so on.

There's very little difference between this act and what existed before. All that's changed is that a father automatically becomes a guardian if he's lived with the mother for a year, of which at least three months must be after the birth.

Beyond that if unmarried a father starts with zero rights. He can apply for guardianship, access, etc and will generally get it though. Enforcing them is another thing as while fathers will often get jailed for breaking maintenance orders, mothers almost never do so for doing the same.

If married you are automatically a guardian (and automatically presumed to be the father, regardless of biological differences between the genders).

Regardless of marriage status the mother will get custody unless there are extreme circumstances (she's done a runner or goes into court with a syringe in her arm). No change there.

TBH, the new 'right' really is a crock of shìt. It's probably faster and easier to get guardianship through the courts and definitely if in agreement with the mother and given the provisions of the cohabitation bill, you'll not want to have been living with the mother for a year or more before the child's conception because then you'll also be liable to financially support her.

K-9 wrote: »

There's no statutory body that will chase him for it just because he's an unmarried father.

Well actually there is. If the mother is in receipt of social welfare, then they will often chase the father for maintenance as they can recoup the first 100E p.w. of any rent allowance paid (and apparently that seems to be the magic number they always demand). As to effectiveness, that's another thing - it's like guardianship, it's gives you rights, but most of these are unenforceable in practice.

K-9 wrote: »

I wonder how much analysis has been done on that. Has the data on women with no children and men with none been compared.

Are we dealing in like for like comparisons or is the ower pay due to maternity leave truthiness.

A causatory link would appear self evident - Occham, et al. In lieu of anything evidence contradicting that, I'd go with that TBH.

Daith wrote: »

Does he get a say if the child is put up for adoption if he's recognized as the biological father but not the guardian?

Legally the child can be put up for adoption unilaterally if the father is not a guardian, all that is required is that the mother make a "reasonable effort to consult" him. Additionally, should the mother be incapacitated, custody would go to her next of kin (typically her parents) in the same scenario.

The Corinthian · 20-08-2015 02:32PM

K-9 wrote: »

AFAIK consent is needed.

Sorry. Incorrect. See above.

newport2 · 20-08-2015 02:32PM

K-9 wrote: »

I wonder how much analysis has been done on that. Has the data on women with no children and men with none been compared.

Are we dealing in like for like comparisons or is the ower pay due to maternity leave truthiness.

I was making up a hypothetical example K-9, so not stating that as fact.

A lot of studies have been done showing single women without children earn more than men do. When they start having children that changes

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/nov/27/young-women-earning-more-men

http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

hatrickpatrick · 20-08-2015 02:35PM

K-9 wrote: »

That would be a jump to a conclusion patrick.

Guardianship isn't that important in day to day matters so it follows it wouldn't effect child payments for day to day matters.

A mother maarying another man would be a material change for me. I suppose long term cohabitation would come under that too.

Guardianship isn't that important in day to day matters? It guarantees the father an equal say in things like education, just to take one example.

My position here is that by default, unless there's a substantive reason to make an exception, once a baby is born the father and the mother should be automatically presumed to be equal, gender-blind parents by the law - regardless of relationship status. You're approaching this from the view that by default, the mother will be the one to make the decisions in the immediate aftermath of a child being born. I'm suggesting that this basic paradigm is fundamentally wrong to begin with.

Samaris · 20-08-2015 02:48PM

These systems are also changing. It was fair on neither the mother nor the father that if they weren't willing to raise the child together, it would be fairly automatically assumed that the woman would give up her future to the be the sole raiser of the child (with monetary support from the male) and fairly automatically assumed that the father would not. This is a poor situation for both, especially if the mother doesn't really want to be raising the child and the father desperately wants the baby. And, nowadays, this is becoming more accepted, and if a father really wants custody of the child, he will be far more likely to get it. This is beneficial to both genders.

There is still a holdback to the older ways that if the mother and father both want custody, the mother is probably still a bit more likely to get it, which is linked in to various other social factors, such as which is more likely to be able to earn for the child, which was contributing more to society by being freely in the workforce. Nowadays, that is becoming less of a gap, particularly in the professional workforce.

There is no need to keep making this a tribalistic us v them thing. It is illogical and counter-productive. It is Us (men and women) v Societal Norms.

K-9 · 20-08-2015 02:50PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Sorry. Incorrect. See above.

Ah right. I suppose that is there to stop men who haven't been involved in the childs life putting a spanner in the works, agsin perfectly reasonable and understandable.

tempotaschen · 20-08-2015 02:53PM

It's a gender war, I tell ya! And men are losing! Gird up your loins.

Is the Western World anti-man?

Comments