In what ways are men discriminated against?

amacachi · 10-04-2012 4:24pm

If the same actuarial stuff was applied to pensions as insurance women would receive a far lower pension than men since they're likely to receive it for longer. Funny how things work out.

Zulu · 10-04-2012 8:16pm

amacachi wrote: »

Funny how things work out.

We were discussing state pension. ...but sure it's a moot point now.

amacachi · 10-04-2012 8:24pm

Zulu wrote: »

We were discussing state pension. ...but sure it's a moot point now.

Applies to both state and private pensions.

Zulu · 10-04-2012 9:56pm

amacachi wrote: »

Applies to both state and private pensions.

Sorry I just reread your post: "if women's pensions were actuarially adjusted".
My sincerest apologies Amacachi, I though you were suggesting that an actuarial adjustment of women pensions would be favourable & akin to favourable women's insurance. Sorry.

amacachi · 10-04-2012 10:11pm

Zulu wrote: »

Sorry I just reread your post: "if women's pensions were actuarially adjusted".
My sincerest apologies Amacachi, I though you were suggesting that an actuarial adjustment of women pensions would be favourable & akin to favourable women's insurance. Sorry.

No bother.

gordon_gekko · 10-04-2012 10:25pm

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.

men are not only less likely to complain about thier plight on various issues , they are less likely to have thier complaints listened to than women theese days

gordon_gekko · 10-04-2012 10:29pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

equality authority outfits are dominated by pc liberals of both the male and female variety , as most irish men are white and hetrosexual , they have little business aproaching that crowd

gordon_gekko · 10-04-2012 10:37pm

eviltwin wrote: »

Tbh the only one I know is the Fathers Rights one and Amen but only cause I work in that area. They need a bigger profile.

I agree men's rights have a knock on effect on women but try its not as easy as that. I work for a women's charity and no man ever wants to talk to me! Its like because I represent women it doesn't have anything to do with him so thats the attitude you're up against. If anything I think women in particular would possibly see a men's right group as a threat. I know similar groups in the US are quite traditional in their values and its important not to get lumped in with that.

I think a lot of people would feel that men want more rights by denying women theirs.

if your tone when approaching men is anything like the one in the above post , im not surprised they show little enthusiasm for what your flogging , your attitude towards male - female dynamics is quite antagonistic

eviltwin · 11-04-2012 12:19am

gordon_gekko wrote: »

if your tone when approaching men is anything like the one in the above post , im not surprised they show little enthusiasm for what your flogging , your attitude towards male - female dynamics is quite antagonistic

Eh you might need to explain that Gordon....not sure what you mean!?

I can only speak from experience. Men generally don't express a desire to get behind what I do because - understandably - as its a womens organization they don't think it has relevance. Thats the mistake our founders made years back. Any similar group for men could learn from those mistakes. As someone said earlier it will work best if you can help women see the benefits to them too.

miec · 11-04-2012 11:49am

I came across this article yesterday where both teenage girls and boys are protesting against the lad mag culture etc so things may be slowly changing.

@TC you're ideas for a lobby group that challenges discrimination against men are excellent and it is the only method that truly works imho (I currently see this method working in my job).

@Eviltwin Whilst I can see your point about men not helping out in the women's movement, I believe that discrimination against one gender affects the other. When one gender is subjugated for the other, it has a massive impact on society as a whole. We really need to lose this 'us vs them' thinking.

For instance there is growing concern that boys are falling behind academically and there are numerous studies showing that girls are outperforming boys. Now as a woman I could ignore this or not care but I am a mother of a boy and I want him to do well. In particular teenage boys have a much harder time staying in school or doing well so I want there to be level playing field for both sexes. I don't want my son growing up to feel like he should cut his balls off as equally if I had a daughter I don't want her growing up thinking her only value is her body / looks.

In addition as a mother of a teenage boy I worry more about him being attacked, beaten up, mugged etc, it is almost expected that every male will experience some form of violence, often by another man but there is a huge increase in female violence. I dread the day that he may come home with a bloody nose or worse.

I would hate to think that my son, if he becomes a father, will lose his right to his children because he is male or that he cannot babysit because people perceive him to be a potential pervert purely because he is male.

Also male only or female only clubs / schools etc encourage divisions between the genders and highlight the differences. They also oddly enough overly sexualise the other gender. You only have to see that behaviour displayed in single sex schools. It makes them Other (which gender theory is so often obsessed with).

Finally if there is a level / equal playing field for men and women it means we get on better as work colleagues, friends, lovers, as married partners and as parents and as such everyone benefits...well that is my Utopian view of life between the sexes.

Atomicjuicer · 11-04-2012 11:55am

Has paternity leave been mentioned?

Men deserve some time with their own children.

Zulu · 11-04-2012 12:01pm

Super post miec!

The Corinthian · 11-04-2012 1:42pm

miec wrote: »

Whilst I can see your point about men not helping out in the women's movement, I believe that discrimination against one gender affects the other. When one gender is subjugated for the other, it has a massive impact on society as a whole. We really need to lose this 'us vs them' thinking.

The whole 'us vs them' thinking is a lot more complicated than that.

On one level I completely agree because ultimately women are still mothers, sisters and daughters to men.

At the same time we've seen feminism in the West move slowly away from a fight for rights to a fight for choice. Much of the reason for this is that women have, at least on paper, all the same rights as men. Indeed, women actually have more rights on paper than men. Increasingly examples from the past or from other countries have been used to justify many feminist positions here and now too. So what do you fight for when the fight is pretty much over?

An excellent example of this is where women are still disadvantaged, in such areas as salaries, employment and political representation. When we examine these areas, the same thing comes up again and again; women are typically the child carers in families and thus end up leaving work and losing years in their careers where they would otherwise be progressing - long term salaries inevitably suffer.

Likewise a woman of child baring age will be discriminated against when going for a job because it is presumed (correctly) that if she does have a child she will be the child carer. And likewise the role of mother has been citied as a reason why women do not enter politics.

All of this goes back to the role of women as child carers. So logically, one would think the solution is to break this stereotype so that men are equally viewed as such. Yet, there have been practically no move to do this outside of support for areas such as paternity leave where a man may assist a mother - he still only remains the assistant to the true child carer; the woman.

To actually equalize this area would mean sacrificing women's monopoly as child carers. It means women giving up rights. And unfortunately this sees little support in modern feminism. Instead, rather than lose these rights, the move is to gain additional rights to compensate for this stereotype, such as the proposed quotas for political candidates.

It's why you hear the phrase 'cake and eat it' in relation to feminism more and more. Increasingly it looks like women prefer to cherry pick which parts of traditional and modern gender roles they wish to have, while men are expected to facilitate this.

This kind of behaviour is normal for anyone; male or female. We all want to have our 'cake and eat it' and will even rationalize why we should if need be. However, it's unsustainable and eventually the pendulum will swing back. The problem is that when it does we'll be left with a patchwork of opposing rights that will probably cause as many problems as it solves, because it will be done employing 'us vs them' thinking rather than any collaborative compromise.

My feeling is that discrimination against men will likely continue to grow for a while before we finally organize and make a change. The smart thing for women would be to accept that this is going to happen and they're better off seeking that collaborative compromise than what will result from such a backlash - sacrificing some rights will be better than the longer term alternative. Regrettably, I suspect that by the time this happens it will be too late.

Blisterman · 11-04-2012 1:43pm

I think it's quite interesting that discrimination against men tends to be more official and obvious. ie Different insurance prices, Paternity leave etc.

Whereas discrimination against women tends to be more down to individuals and subtle. ie. the assumption that a man would be more rational or competent.

This is undoubtedly due to the feminist movement's achievements. But I agree with a previous poster. What we need now is more of an equality movement.

gordon_gekko · 11-04-2012 2:23pm

miec wrote: »

I came across this article yesterday where both teenage girls and boys are protesting against the lad mag culture etc so things may be slowly changing.

@TC you're ideas for a lobby group that challenges discrimination against men are excellent and it is the only method that truly works imho (I currently see this method working in my job).

@Eviltwin Whilst I can see your point about men not helping out in the women's movement, I believe that discrimination against one gender affects the other. When one gender is subjugated for the other, it has a massive impact on society as a whole. We really need to lose this 'us vs them' thinking.

For instance there is growing concern that boys are falling behind academically and there are numerous studies showing that girls are outperforming boys. Now as a woman I could ignore this or not care but I am a mother of a boy and I want him to do well. In particular teenage boys have a much harder time staying in school or doing well so I want there to be level playing field for both sexes. I don't want my son growing up to feel like he should cut his balls off as equally if I had a daughter I don't want her growing up thinking her only value is her body / looks.

In addition as a mother of a teenage boy I worry more about him being attacked, beaten up, mugged etc, it is almost expected that every male will experience some form of violence, often by another man but there is a huge increase in female violence. I dread the day that he may come home with a bloody nose or worse.

I would hate to think that my son, if he becomes a father, will lose his right to his children because he is male or that he cannot babysit because people perceive him to be a potential pervert purely because he is male.

Also male only or female only clubs / schools etc encourage divisions between the genders and highlight the differences. They also oddly enough overly sexualise the other gender. You only have to see that behaviour displayed in single sex schools. It makes them Other (which gender theory is so often obsessed with).

Finally if there is a level / equal playing field for men and women it means we get on better as work colleagues, friends, lovers, as married partners and as parents and as such everyone benefits...well that is my Utopian view of life between the sexes.

not everyone wishes to see a bluring of the lines between the two sexes , such a transformation would inevitabley require a further feminisation of the male sex and that pursuit has caused enough problems already

respect between all kinds of people is important but women and men are inherently different and i oppose attempts to engineer them as identical

mariebeth · 11-04-2012 3:19pm

Blisterman wrote: »

Whereas discrimination against women tends to be more down to individuals and subtle. ie. the assumption that a man would be more rational or competent.

Have to disagree on this, discrimination against men can be very subtle as well. As a woman, I have to admit that the most sexist people I generally come across are women, in the guise of subtle insults against men.

My dad's in his 70's, has always cooked, cleaned, taken an active role in childcare etc. He was a 'new man' before the term was even invented. Recently my mum had to get an injection in to her eye, and had her eye covered for 24 hours as a result, the [female] nurse said to my dad 'sher you'll be only having a boiled egg for your dinner today'.

I work in a deli, and we do up pizzas, literally putting the toppings on the pizza and putting it in an oven to cook for two minutes, and I've been told a few times by older women that I'll make a great wife someday :rolleyes: to be honest I pity my future husband/partner because I'm not one bit domestic!

Personally I think as long as discrimination occurs like this in every day life, nothing will change in policy or society as a whole for men or women.

gordon_gekko · 11-04-2012 3:28pm

women are often very quick to play the sexist card if they feel they are loosing a grip on situations involving men theese days , i once had a very negative experience while working for a female middle manager overseas , on my last day , had the " you have a problem with women telling you what to do " line thrown at me

fact of the matter was i didnt mind having a woman boss , what i did mind was having a sectarian bigot workplace bully assasinating my charechter everyday of the week

The Corinthian · 11-04-2012 3:47pm

gordon_gekko wrote: »

not everyone wishes to see a bluring of the lines between the two sexes , such a transformation would inevitabley require a further feminisation of the male sex and that pursuit has caused enough problems already

I don't mind blurring of the lines, with regards to roles, as long as it is based on choice and merit. Men taking up female roles will only result in feminisation if we choose to simply copy women, instead of making them our own.

mariebeth wrote: »

Have to disagree on this, discrimination against men can be very subtle as well. As a woman, I have to admit that the most sexist people I generally come across are women, in the guise of subtle insults against men.

This is another reason that the whole 'us vs them' thinking is a lot more complicated than we realize. I think both men and women are schizophrenic about gender roles. Women want to be women, but still often want the traditional marriage. Men want equality, but they'll still often expect a woman to do most of the housework. It's the 'cake and eat it' thing I mentioned earlier.

As such women are often the most chauvinist against other women that you find, because unlike chauvinist men, they don't need to hide it (it's like a black guy using the 'N' word).

panda100 · 11-04-2012 3:50pm

Orion wrote: »

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.

I really can't see many women objecting to a male only gym. I would safely say that the majority of women would be fine with it. Personally, I wouldn't encourge clubs defined on the basis of sex, as we are all human and the same at the end of the day.

The Corinthian · 11-04-2012 3:59pm

panda100 wrote: »

I really can't see many women objecting to a male only gym. I would safely say that the majority of women would be fine with it. Personally, I wouldn't encourge clubs defined on the basis of sex, as we are all human and the same at the end of the day.

I think the hypocrisy of women-only associations is better exemplified by this little gem:

Senator Ivana Bacik: [..] I am happy to say that Baroness Corston will be visiting Leinster House on Thursday. Deputy Mary O’Rourke and I are hosting a meeting with her for all women Members of the Oireachtas. I am sorry that we cannot invite any male colleagues interested in this issue to the briefing with Baroness Corston.

Senator David Norris: Why not?

Senator Ivana Bacik: I would be happy to meet them to discuss the issues at another time.

Source. Related article.

Jimmy Bottlehead · 11-04-2012 4:07pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think the hypocrisy of women-only associations is better exemplified by this little gem:

Source. Related article.

That actually makes me incredibly ****ing angry.

Only male TD's are allowed attend, sorry female TD's, you're not welcome.
Only white TD's are allowed attend, sorry black TD's you're not welcome.

If either of the above statements were uttered, there would be an absolute meltdown. But sure it's just the guys that are banned, what'll they ever do?

mariebeth · 11-04-2012 4:20pm

Jimmy Bottlehead wrote: »

That actually makes me incredibly ****ing angry.

Only male TD's are allowed attend, sorry female TD's, you're not welcome.
Only white TD's are allowed attend, sorry black TD's you're not welcome.

If either of the above statements were uttered, there would be an absolute meltdown. But sure it's just the guys that are banned, what'll they ever do?

In a way it's basically reverse discrimination. It's not okay to discriminate against groups that have been discriminated against all along, but it's okay for those groups to discriminate against the group that is 'guilty' of discriminating against them. As The Corinthian put it, it's the whole us vs them thing, and this won't change until people stop thinking in terms of us and them. It also won't change until people start telling boys that they can be whatever they want to be when they grow up, just as much as they are telling girls that message.

The Corinthian · 11-04-2012 4:37pm

mariebeth wrote: »

As The Corinthian put it, it's the whole us vs them thing, and this won't change until people stop thinking in terms of us and them.

As long as mainstream feminism is in the hands of the likes of Bacik, that's simply not going to happen.

hollypink · 11-04-2012 4:53pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

As long as mainstream feminism is in the hands of the likes of Bacik, that's simply not going to happen.

I thought Bacik was more enlightened than that but apparently not. I heard her talking some time ago about paternity leave and thought it was good to see a feminist talking about that but on reflection I think she was coming at it from the angle that women would be treated more equally in the workplace if men took paternity leave, rather than that parental leave was a right that should be extended to men as well as women.

amacachi · 11-04-2012 4:58pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

As long as mainstream feminism is in the hands of the likes of Bacik, that's simply not going to happen.

Bacik would be hilarious but for the sway she somehow holds. I heard she wasn't happy about not getting elected at the last general election, something about the party not getting behind her. Running her alongside the party leader apparently wasn't getting behind her. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian · 11-04-2012 5:08pm

hollypink wrote: »

I thought Bacik was more enlightened than that but apparently not. I heard her talking some time ago about paternity leave and thought it was good to see a feminist talking about that but on reflection I think she was coming at it from the angle that women would be treated more equally in the workplace if men took paternity leave, rather than that parental leave was a right that should be extended to men as well as women.

Paternity leave is an easy win for her. It appears to support men's rights - and in a very limited way it does - but ultimately she's happy to support men's ability to assist their partners in care, but rather silent on actual rights to their children.

She has never supported anything other than superficial or cosmetic reform in favour of men's rights. Even her support for the reform of guardianship is tainted by the fact that this same reform actually removes any power from a non-custodial parent (i.e. the father).

To me she's a misandrist, plain and simple.

amacachi wrote: »

Bacik would be hilarious but for the sway she somehow holds. I heard she wasn't happy about not getting elected at the last general election, something about the party not getting behind her. Running her alongside the party leader apparently wasn't getting behind her. :rolleyes:

I get the impression that while she has her own cabal of devoted followers, she's more popular with the Labour party leadership than she is with the Labour party membership.

sharper · 11-04-2012 7:41pm

gordon_gekko wrote: »

not everyone wishes to see a bluring of the lines between the two sexes , such a transformation would inevitabley require a further feminisation of the male sex and that pursuit has caused enough problems already

How about instead of trying to prejudge individuals based on their gender you instead recognise any two men and any two women can be so different as to make generalisation useless.

respect between all kinds of people is important but women and men are inherently different and i oppose attempts to engineer them as identical

I'm inherently different to you and you're inherently different to the next guy, you'd balk at the suggestion you should behave a certain way because I do.

miec · 11-04-2012 10:57pm

respect between all kinds of people is important but women and men are inherently different and i oppose attempts to engineer them as identical

In what ways are men and women inherently different (apart from biology)? Are we not both of the human race? The biological differences that we have can be complimentary rather than oppositional as it has been.

What do you mean by further feminisation of men? Do you feel that men are losing their masculinity at present?

When I say about us vs them, what I mean is that I am very leery about this need to have equal amounts of women in politics purely because they are a woman or a woman getting a job because of her gender. I find that kind of thinking / behaviour as absurd and downright scary. It should be purely based on skill, etc, not gender. Or a man paying for everything just because he is a man, even though his girlfriend or wife earns the same. Or in the case of a man sacrificing himself for me just because I am a woman.

I did English lit in college and what struck me through the ages whilst reading various texts is the struggle that men and women underwent under the patriarchal system where women were subjugated was that you had these poor sods of men having to be head of the household and them really not wanting to take that mantle and a strong woman having to silence themselves or be moulded into very confined roles (Renaissance / Victorian literature abounds with this anxiety).

Otis Driftwood · 11-04-2012 11:05pm

FYI folks,gordon_gekko is now perm banned from here.Its an alt account from a site banned user so please disregard his posts.

Cheers.

Pawwed Rig · 12-04-2012 12:32pm

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think the hypocrisy of women-only associations is better exemplified by this little gem:

Source. Related article.

Reading more of that debate i found this quote

"This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of Lords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report."

the_syco · 12-04-2012 12:32pm

Sauve wrote: »

but they are the way they are

Women not being able to drive used to be the things were. Just because "that's the way things are" doesn't make it not discrimination at all, huh?

Sul wrote: »

They base their policies on statistics.

Do you know when women started to drive? Statistically men caused most crashes between when they started to drive, and when women started to drive.

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.

You said that as the insurance companies have to make their money back, it's allowed.

Sul wrote: »

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....

So basically, if women discriminate against men, it's okay, but if men discriminate against women it's not? Lots of women want a women only gym, they get one. Lots of men want a men only golf club and you call discrimination.

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

I work in insurance and this is a fact.Although women have more accidents statistically,the severity of the accidents involving male drivers coupled with higher claim settlement figures means that men are a higher risk.

I wonder is there a place where one could check what the stats are recently?

Sul wrote: »

And men cost insurance companies more therefore the policy is higher.

Driving is also a personal choice. You dont have to drive.

To paraphrase what you just said:
And women cost companies more therefore the policy is higher by not working.

Pregnancy is also a personal choice. You dont have to get pregnant.

Sul wrote: »

Id like to point out as well that im not some mad feminist who wants to rid the world of men....

Sul wrote: »

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

:rolleyes:

Sul wrote: »

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

So far, we have to tell you the same things multiple times before you understand, so three times is not that much.

mariebeth wrote: »

In a way it's basically reverse discrimination.

Also called "positive discrimination".

=-=

An interesting thread.

The Corinthian · 12-04-2012 12:54pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Reading more of that debate i found this quote

"This week, we are fortunate to receive a visit from Baroness Jean Corston from the British House of Lords who produced a very radical report last year on women in prison and who recommended, after a very thorough review, that prison places for women should essentially be abolished and that there should just be a small number of small detention units for women. Otherwise, alternative sanctions should be used. We could very much learn from the lessons of that report."

That we now appear willing to discuss in mainstream politics the legitimization of a two-tier system of law (to deal with the same crimes) based on gender is a remarkably disturbing development.

pickarooney · 12-04-2012 3:58pm

Men are less likely to be taken seriously. Any legitimate complaint will usually be twisted to it becomes the complainants fault, e.g.
"I get charged more insurance for being a man"
-men are more dangerous, you are a man, ergo it's your own fault
"I get screwed over by the courts with regards to access/maintenance"
-men made those laws, you are a man, ergo it's your fault

Women's complaints are generally taken at face value and challenging them is being a dick. Any injustice against women in general is, to one extent or another, held against men as a whole but the opposite is not the case.

SugarHigh · 12-04-2012 4:32pm

pickarooney wrote: »

Men are less likely to be taken seriously. Any legitimate complaint will usually be twisted to it becomes the complainants fault, e.g.
"I get charged more insurance for being a man"
-men are more dangerous, you are a man, ergo it's your own fault
"I get screwed over by the courts with regards to access/maintenance"
-men made those laws, you are a man, ergo it's your fault

Women's complaints are generally taken at face value and challenging them is being a dick. Any injustice against women in general is, to one extent or another, held against men as a whole but the opposite is not the case.

I definitely agree that blaming women seems to be frowned.

Take for example the lack of fortune 500 female CEO's. Maybe there just aren't that many women who qualify? Surely that's a possibility.

The lack of women in politics should really be blamed on women choosing not to participate in politics but instead it's some patriarchy holding them back.

Lower wages for women should also be blamed on the choices women make but it's still used as an example of sexism, as if men are to blame for the choices of women.

SugarHigh · 12-04-2012 4:39pm

Just to add I actually don't have an issue with men being charged more for insurance if that's what the figures suggest should happen.

I'm just annoyed that if you decided not to hire women because they are more expensive due to pregnancy you would be slaughtered. There are also figures that suggest women will have shorter careers so I think it's justifiable that an employer would take this into account when deciding who to train.

The Corinthian · 12-04-2012 5:11pm

There have been numerous studies on the subject of salaries in particular in Ireland and other nations. Repeatedly the same conclusions are reached; women's careers suffer in the long term because they end up holding the baby.

Consider taking a break from work to travel the World for five years. When you return your skills will be out of date, being out of the workforce for so long will be seen as a weakness and even if you could pick up where you left off you would still be at a salary level and role that you were at five years ago - others who didn't take a break will have been promoted and received raises in that time.

All before you consider that even upon returning to work, a primary child carer will not be able to do the same long hours that they did prior to being a parent. Or will have to drop everything when their child is sick, or leave early for teacher-parent meetings and so on.

The evidence is there, it even goes so far as to show that women in their twenties out preform men where it comes to salaries and that childless women in their forties earn more than their male counterparts. I don't think any of this is (in academic circles) in dispute or anyone denies that this is why it happens, yet why is this message not getting across?

As often than not the message in the media on this is that the salary gap is as a result of 'discrimination'. What this 'discrimination' is, is never fully explained. At least though salary per hours worked is being quoted now - it used not be and aggregate figures used to be published which compared part time with full time workers.

I believe that the 'discrimination' angle is still pushed because if the actual reasons were to be publicly accepted it wouldn't take long for the obvious solution to be mooted; spread the role of child carer equally amongst the sexes.

But to do this would mean changing the entire system of rights and prejudices that presently mean that women have all the rights to children. It would mean a loss of rights, regardless if those rights are just or not.

Instead we get calls for increasing levels of protection and facilitation of women who are child carers. Men are only brought into the mix to assist and share the burden, but no mention is ever made that they should actually equally share the primary carer role with women.

I'm actually at a bit of a loss as to why this has been allowed to continue for so long.

Galwayguy35 · 12-04-2012 7:44pm

In the case of an unplanned pregnancy a man has no choice about becoming a father if the woman decides she is going to go ahead and have the baby. There is another thread elsewhere on the forum about a womans right to choose but a man has no choice. He will have to contribute financially to a kid he might never want. Its a difficult situation and there are no easy solutions.

Atomicjuicer · 12-04-2012 10:46pm

Do men have to sign birth certs within a short period of time to claim paternity when they can only do a ridiculously invasive procedure during pregnancy or wait until its too late to get the tests done after birth?

Seperate comment:
Women get automatic parent recognition - this isn't always the case for men (who may not even have been told they have a child in some circumstances).

Atomicjuicer · 12-04-2012 10:48pm

Girls get paid to watch tv (babysitters)

Boys don't get this opportunity.

The Corinthian · 13-04-2012 8:20am

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Do men have to sign birth certs within a short period of time to claim paternity when they can only do a ridiculously invasive procedure during pregnancy or wait until its too late to get the tests done after birth?

The birth cert is not proof of paternity and there is no time limit on making such a claim.

Women get automatic parent recognition - this isn't always the case for men (who may not even have been told they have a child in some circumstances).

Don't confuse paternity with guardianship; two different things.

This thread has so far discussed areas of anti-male bias outside of family law, if we want to include that, it would likely triple in size.

jaja321 · 13-04-2012 9:27am

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

In the case of an unplanned pregnancy a man has no choice about becoming a father if the woman decides she is going to go ahead and have the baby. There is another thread elsewhere on the forum about a womans right to choose but a man has no choice. He will have to contribute financially to a kid he might never want. Its a difficult situation and there are no easy solutions.

He has the choice to wear a condom in fairness.

jaja321 · 13-04-2012 9:37am

The Corinthian wrote: »

There have been numerous studies on the subject of salaries in particular in Ireland and other nations. Repeatedly the same conclusions are reached; women's careers suffer in the long term because they end up holding the baby.

Consider taking a break from work to travel the World for five years. When you return your skills will be out of date, being out of the workforce for so long will be seen as a weakness and even if you could pick up where you left off you would still be at a salary level and role that you were at five years ago - others who didn't take a break will have been promoted and received raises in that time.

All before you consider that even upon returning to work, a primary child carer will not be able to do the same long hours that they did prior to being a parent. Or will have to drop everything when their child is sick, or leave early for teacher-parent meetings and so on.

The evidence is there, it even goes so far as to show that women in their twenties out preform men where it comes to salaries and that childless women in their forties earn more than their male counterparts. I don't think any of this is (in academic circles) in dispute or anyone denies that this is why it happens, yet why is this message not getting across?

As often than not the message in the media on this is that the salary gap is as a result of 'discrimination'. What this 'discrimination' is, is never fully explained. At least though salary per hours worked is being quoted now - it used not be and aggregate figures used to be published which compared part time with full time workers.

I believe that the 'discrimination' angle is still pushed because if the actual reasons were to be publicly accepted it wouldn't take long for the obvious solution to be mooted; spread the role of child carer equally amongst the sexes.

But to do this would mean changing the entire system of rights and prejudices that presently mean that women have all the rights to children. It would mean a loss of rights, regardless if those rights are just or not.

Instead we get calls for increasing levels of protection and facilitation of women who are child carers. Men are only brought into the mix to assist and share the burden, but no mention is ever made that they should actually equally share the primary carer role with women.

I'm actually at a bit of a loss as to why this has been allowed to continue for so long.

Absolutely agree with you. I've long argued that there should be parental leave instead of maternity leave and that parents should be able to decide amongst them how it is divided up. The current situation is, I believe, discriminatory towards both men and women.

The Corinthian · 13-04-2012 9:38am

jaja321 wrote: »

He has the choice to wear a condom in fairness.

When the choice to use contraception is the only one open to women, I'll take that argument seriously. Otherwise it really is a bit like the argument a hundred years ago that if a woman didn't want to get herself in trouble she could keep her legs closed.

The Corinthian · 13-04-2012 9:40am

jaja321 wrote: »

Absolutely agree with you. I've long argued that there should be parental leave instead of maternity leave and that parents should be able to decide amongst them how it is divided up. The current situation is, I believe, discriminatory towards both men and women.

Parental leave is insufficient as I have already pointed out. All this does is allow men to 'assist' the mother who remains the 'real' child carer and would do nothing to change the attitudes of people.

After all, how can you promote men to share the load of child care when we have no rights to the children we care for?

jaja321 · 13-04-2012 9:42am

The Corinthian wrote: »

When the choice to use contraception is the only one open to women, I'll take that argument seriously. Otherwise it really is a bit like the argument a hundred years ago that if a woman didn't want to get herself in trouble she could keep her legs closed.

I don't really see them as the same thing. He can still have sex, but just take responsibility for his actions, by using a condom. Isn't there also a new injectable contraception for men now too? I think it’s currently undergoing trials, but has been shown to be extremely effective and reversible.

jaja321 · 13-04-2012 9:44am

The Corinthian wrote: »

Parental leave is insufficient as I have already pointed out. All this does is allow men to 'assist' the mother who remains the 'real' child carer and would do nothing to change the attitudes of people.

After all, how can you promote men to share the load of child care when we have no rights to the children we care for?

I'm not trying to argue with you here. I agree the situation with fathers rights is horrendous and needs to change. That's one issue. The other issue is parental leave - I don't mean it in terms of 'assiting the mother' at all, but being an equal caregiver. If men were offered this and availed of it, then attitudes may change over time.

The Corinthian · 13-04-2012 9:53am

jaja321 wrote: »

I don't really see them as the same thing. He can still have sex, but just take responsibility for his actions, by using a condom. Isn't there also a new injectable contraception for men now too? I think it’s currently undergoing trials, but has been shown to be extremely effective and reversible.

So men must use contraception and take responsibility for their actions, while women have need not use contraception as they still have 'choices'? As I said, I don't buy that.

jaja321 wrote: »

The other issue is parental leave - I don't mean it in terms of 'assiting the mother' at all, but being an equal caregiver. If men were offered this and availed of it, then attitudes may change over time.

No they will not because he is not an equal caregiver. All you get is someone with the same legal rights as a babysitter to help the 'real' caregiver and men are simply not going to take up that in huge numbers.

If you want attitudes to change, women need to give up the present monopoly of rights they have to children. Otherwise you're just looking to have your cake and eat it.

jaja321 · 13-04-2012 9:57am

The Corinthian wrote: »

So men must use contraception and take responsibility for their actions, while women have need not use contraception as they still have 'choices'? As I said, I don't buy that.

No they will not because he is not an equal caregiver. All you get is someone with the same legal rights as a babysitter to help the 'real' caregiver and men are simply not going to take up that in huge numbers.

If you want attitudes to change, women need to give up the present monopoly of rights they have to children. Otherwise you're just looking to have your cake and eat it.

Crikey. I never said anything about women not having to use contraception?!

Don't know where the hostility is coming from tbh.. its seem it is you who doesn't see men as equal caregivers. I know if I had children, my partner would very much be seen as an equal caregiver in my eyes. As I said before, I think the situation with fathers rights is horrendous and needs to change. I don't want to have any monopoly of rights over children, thanks very much.

The Corinthian · 13-04-2012 10:06am

jaja321 wrote: »

Crikey. I never said anything about women not having to use contraception?!

No, but you do appear to support a position that women should have options regardless of whether they use contraception or not, while men cannot.

Don't know where the hostility is coming from tbh.. its seem it is you who doesn't see men as equal caregivers.

We're not. Society tells us we're not. The law tells us we're not. Less than one in ten fathers get custody and we have none of the rights that women have and even when we do gain them (through the courts) they are often unenforceable.

I know if I had children, my partner would very much be seen as an equal caregiver in my eyes.

Which is great for him because he would have a partner who chooses to accept him as such - however it should not be a right that you can bestow or not.

Until that changes men will never be equal caregivers, only assistants.

jaja321 · 13-04-2012 10:17am

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, but you do appear to support a position that women should have options regardless of whether they use contraception or not, while men cannot.

We're not. Society tells us we're not. The law tells us we're not. Less than one in ten fathers get custody and we have none of the rights that women have and even when we do gain them (through the courts) they are often unenforceable.

Which is great for him because he would have a partner who chooses to accept him as such - however it should not be a right that you can bestow or not.

Until that changes men will never be equal caregivers, only assistants.

I don't support a position where women should have a monopoly on choices. If there is an unplanned pregnancy then I think any decision should be joint. I've never alluded to any other position. All I was saying is that men can wear condoms in order to try and protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy. Just as women can use contraception. That's all I was saying.

Society does tell men they are not equal caregivers, and as I've said I think three times now, I think this is horrendous, and I think it needs to change. What I said was that parental leave, might be an avenue for making inways to change. That is all. I think legislation needs to be changed to order to support the rights of fathers. I also that think the reference in our consititution to women's place being in the home (and ergo being the main caregivers) needs to be removed.

I'm not trying to bestow any rights on my partner either with respect to caregiving. If we have children, he would be an equal parent. That's just the way I see it. I get what you are saying though as I know society doesn't always see it this way. Which is why I have said I advocate for change in legislation including changes to maternity leave.

In what ways are men discriminated against?

Comments