Its a Woman's World

IvySlayer

[quote=[Deleted User];65883818]The point was, fathers, unlike friends and family, DO get time off. So why are you acting like they have to be in the office at 7 the next day? They don't.

No, I don't think the law is fair. But there are countless examples of things that aren't fair for women. I'm all for changing that law but at the end of the day someone is always going to lose something. In the Middle East and many other places, it's the men who have all the rights and can take the kids. I don't know of anywhere where it's 'perfect' for all parties.[/QUOTE]

So ruin a childs life in Ireland because of discrimination against women in the Middle East?

It is actually possible for women and men to equally get custody of the child and to pay for the child equally so no-one has to lose out.

IvySlayer

Thaedydal wrote: »

Grand so, somethings aren't fair, what are you doing to do about them?
Have you emailed the political parties and asked have they a policy on paternity leave? I have, found on only 1 of them did.
If you really want things to change, make that change happen.


Oh yeah sorry this is ah


Periods, pregnancy, bras and highheels, women have it worse, :P

I sent a poll which was on boards to see if my local TDs would respond to it! No responce so far yet!

Also we have to deal with women when it's their...time...you know :P

Fukuyama

davyjose wrote: »

This has angered me. this is the shìt us men have to deal with. We don't give birth to the baby, so we are now on a fcuking par with a baby's second cousin.

What a joke comment.

I spent the last two weeks caring for my 6 Month old, while he had the Flu, a chest infection and conjunctivitus, while his mother was in hospital. i went days without more than 2 or 3 hours sleep, and all I cared about was the well-being of my child. I love him so much I'd have chopped off my foot to make him better. it broke my heart to see him like that. But hey, I didn't give birth to him, so fcuk it. what emotional bond do I have.

:mad:

Exactly. Thanks God not all women think like that. If and when I get married and have kids etc... I'm making damn sure that my wife sees the husbands role in bringing up a kid just as important right accross the board as womens.

Fukuyama

IvySlayer wrote: »

So ruin a childs life in Ireland because of discrimination against women in the Middle East?

It is actually possible for women and men to equally get custody of the child and to pay for the child equally so no-one has to lose out.

It is possible. But so rare its like gold dust.

The arrangement is that the kids spend a week in one house, and a week in the other. Both parents split costs equally.

In Irish family courst however, they're the four-leaf-clovers of settlements and normally the wife would have to request it for the father and argue on his behalf.

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

My mouth actually dropped open when I read that. Boards, particulary AH s known for generalisations, but this takes the biscuit.

You're basing your argument on people you know? You also say that 'plenty of men dont want kids'. Really, I'd say most men want kids. The same amount of women, anyway.

There are plenty of women who dont want kids either.

There are numerous single fathers or farther who are denied access to their kids on this website, and I've talked to quite a few of them. I'll allow them to vent their opinion on what you just said.

Yes, I am. There are no real statistics on this, so what exactly do you propose? I love how you're acting like you're not stating your opinion. You are. You might have found a few websites to back up your claims, but you're still stating an opinion.

And again, off you go on your tangent. Yes, of course there are numerous single fathers on this website. Where am I denying that? Of course many fathers get a tough ride with Ireland's backwards family law system. That doesn't mean it's a woman's world.

And I never said most men don't want kids. I clearly meant that plenty of men WHO HAVE KIDS DON'T WANT CUSTODY OF THEM. 'The' kids, I said. Their kids. As was obvious from the context. So why are you going on about how lots of women don't want kids?

A Primal Nut

Dean0088 wrote: »

I know women should get more, they are the natural care givers of babies and thats something that just ... IS. We dont have boobs... But surely a man should get more than a couple of days to spend and bond with his new child.. nay, FAMILY.

I disagree.....we all have this sense of entitlement that we should get this amount of days off or that amount of days off, but its not sustainable in a competitive economy. There is no reason the guy can't take holidays if the child is really important to him. It simply isn't necessary for guys to get paternity leave....we can survive without it.

The woman needs it because she can't work around the period of giving birth. I'd rather have no paternity leave than go through what women do, giving birth, etc

I agree though that society does seem to value women's values more. Music is played on the radio according to women's tastes, its considered the more feelings you express, the better (why?), and children are being discouraged from having any masculine values (competitiveness, for example) because they are considered bad for the kid's development, probably because most people in childcare and teaching are women who just don't understand it.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65883875]You've chosen to twist my post totally out of context. Where did I mention an emotional bond? I said it's purely a physical thing. Adoptive parents have pretty much no leave at all, so what's the difference here? They love and bond with their children, but the fact is, they didn't give birth to the kid. The natural mother has more right to leave than they do, even though she gave the kid away. Why are you bringing feelings into this?[/QUOTE]

Physically, women would be able to return to work after a few weeks. If there was a huge complication, a doctor could enforce more time off. But it'd be rare.

The emotional side and caring for the child is catered for the women by the law. The men have no right to any days off. Luckily, most employers will give them at least two. Maybe three, if they;re lucky.

davyjose

[quote=[Deleted User];65883875]You've chosen to twist my post totally out of context. Where did I mention an emotional bond? I said it's purely a physical thing. Adoptive parents have pretty much no leave at all, so what's the difference here? They love and bond with their children, but the fact is, they didn't give birth to the kid. The natural mother has more right to leave than they do, even though she gave the kid away. Why are you bringing feelings into this?[/QUOTE]

It's not a physical thing. It does NOT take 9 months to recovery from pregnancy/childbirth. Women can avail of this much time off from work. So the physical thing argument is BS.

I'm bringing feelings into it, because as a father, I face discrimination. It's personal.

IvySlayer

IvySlayer wrote: »

So ruin a childs life in Ireland because of discrimination against women in the Middle East?

It is actually possible for women and men to equally get custody of the child and to pay for the child equally so no-one has to lose out.

I didn't say that. What's with the word twisting? I said that in other countries, the opposite happens. Not that it's any better or worse. I've lived in many countries and I've yet to find one where women and men had the same rights concerning children. And I've yet to see how you can even decide on what's fair when there are so many variables. Children aren't pet hamsters, how do you think it works out for one parent to have them half the time and the other for the other half? How would you propose a solution? What if mom lives in Dublin and dad lives in London? Even if they live in the same city, it's a lot of upheaval for a child to be going between two homes constantly.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65883818]The point was, fathers, unlike friends and family, DO get time off. So why are you acting like they have to be in the office at 7 the next day? They don't.

Yes, They Do.

No, I don't think the law is fair. But there are countless examples of things that aren't fair for women. I'm all for changing that law but at the end of the day someone is always going to lose something. In the Middle East and many other places, it's the men who have all the rights and can take the kids. I don't know of anywhere where it's 'perfect' for all parties.
Middle East? You're honestly bringing that into it. This is Ireland. The thing in the middle east is harly about woments rights at this stage. Its a humanitarian crisis highlighted by Amnesty.

If you really want to start talking about third world countries, what about child soldiers who are 95% male? Or what about the fact that 97% of death penalties are given to men?

Come on ... we're talking about Ireland here

You say there are countless examples were the law is unfair to women as opposed to men. Please, name a few.
[/QUOTE]

- Dean

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

Physically, women would be able to return to work after a few weeks. If there was a huge complication, a doctor could enforce more time off. But it'd be rare.

The emotional side and caring for the child is catered for the women by the law. The men have no right to any days off. Luckily, most employers will give them at least two. Maybe three, if they;re lucky.

OK, so what about adoptive parents then? Don't they care for the child? So why don't adoptive mothers get 6 months off work?

Fukuyama

davyjose wrote: »

It's not a physical thing. It does NOT take 9 months to recovery from pregnancy/childbirth. Women can avail of this much time off from work. So the physical thing argument is BS.

I'm bringing feelings into it, because as a father, I face discrimination. It's personal.

Nail. On. Head.

sponsoredwalk

IvySlayer wrote: »

All strange men are potential paedophiles.

http://www.maxdesign.com.au/2009/10/12/schrodingers/

Erwin Schrodinger was on to something with his hatred of cats

IvySlayer wrote: »

Women get cheaper insurance.

http://ezinearticles.com/?Cheap-Car-Insurance-for-Women-%96-Its-Cheaper,-But-Why?&id=217219

http://automotive-insurance.suite101.com/article.cfm/cheap-car-insurance-for-women

A simple google search would have made this look less like it was a post attacking women & more about the facts

Not saying that it is but
lumping in the obvious
with anything
substantial
is a bit
.

IvySlayer wrote: »

The law is so favoured towards women, do you think that is fair? Women get automatic rights to children whereas men don't. Explain that.

I'm not disagreeing with you, this is atrocious! Why do you think the law is set this way? The womens movement, stopped moaning, got off their asses & changed it. How can the law be changed when men complain about it but do nothing to change it? I remember reading about men giving out about court cases favouring women over men but not doing anything about it.

All I'm saying is action as opposed to frustrated complaints are what's needed after so many years of men complaining about the situation.

Also, I haven't noticed anybody point out that this is company policy, it's nothing to do with women that men are not allowed more time off.

IvySlayer wrote: »

Oh some man abandoned his child so all revenge must be taken on every father? Being a dad is so much harder when the mammy starts ****ing up the relationships. She can deny the father access, they won't bond, the relationship is destroyed. And she will still happily accept his money.

This is a bit, err...

Dean0088 wrote: »

Quite a lot, as of late (last ten years). I'm sure I'll get a back lash here but the reason many women don't make it as high up the corperate ladder is because they decided to take a few years off if they have kids.

This is where policy is interfering with biology. A woman is seen as being unable to compete because she has a desire to have a child so the husband can go off & reach the top. Maybe if men were given adequate time off to father their child it would equal the playing field on both sides?

WindSock

Sure it's a womans world alright. When we complain, campaign, become activists for inequalities and sexism toward our gender we are pandering to the victim culture, we are fat ugly men hating feminazis, we are hypocrites when the justice system fails to prosecute women fairly, we are expected to become activists for each and every cause and injustice there is, otherwise we are only purely out for ourselves and no one else.

If men take a stance about inequalities suffered to them, do you think they come up against the same amount of opposition from other women, or from each other? I see a lot of support and encouragement from women here when men complain about sexism in ads and parental rights/paternity leave. If only it were the same for us instead of having to go against the tide for most of the time. Oh but wait now, that's victim culture talk, now isn't it.

IvySlayer

[quote=[Deleted User];65884029]I didn't say that. What's with the word twisting? I said that in other countries, the opposite happens. Not that it's any better or worse. I've lived in many countries and I've yet to find one where women and men had the same rights concerning children. And I've yet to see how you can even decide on what's fair when there are so many variables. Children aren't pet hamsters, how do you think it works out for one parent to have them half the time and the other for the other half? How would you propose a solution? What if mom lives in Dublin and dad lives in London? Even if they live in the same city, it's a lot of upheaval for a child to be going between two homes constantly.[/QUOTE]

According to the law it would automatically go to the woman, you're not complaining because it suits you.

Each case is different and has different circumstances indeed. Did you know that in custody battles, 92% of the time, the woman gets sole custody?

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884048]OK, so what about adoptive parents then? Don't they care for the child? So why don't adoptive mothers get 6 months off work?[/QUOTE]

a) Adoptive parents are no gender specific and as such as irrelivent in this debate

b) Normally the child is quite old (at least a few months) whereby the caring side is gone. IT's just a child at that stage.

c) Bonding etc... is an issue. I agree. But adoptive law in Ireland is completely seperate matter.

d) the parents choose to go and adopt a child. As such, they face different emotional tribulations than if it were their own. Not a fair comparison.

e) At least is fair on both sexes. Neither adoptive parent gets time off.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884048]OK, so what about adoptive parents then? Don't they care for the child? So why don't adoptive mothers get 6 months off work?[/QUOTE]

THAT, sums up your attitude COMPLETELY

Bonito

It's obviously not. BTW, mixing up lyrics thread is that way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fd8_gojNXc

IvySlayer

IvySlayer wrote: »

According to the law it would automatically go to the woman, you're not complaining because it suits you.

Each case is different and has different circumstances indeed. Did you know that in custody battles, 92% of the time, the woman gets sole custody?

So keep campaigning to change it. No, it isn't fair. We all know that. But women were discriminated against in virtually every area for years. They fought for change and got it. So I'm not quite sure why men keep bringing up the same few (and they are very few) points and saying it's not fair.

Fukuyama

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

This is where policy is interfering with biology. A woman is seen as being unable to compete because she has a desire to have a child so the husband can go off & reach the top. Maybe if men were given adequate time off to father their child it would equal the playing field on both sides?

So, you solution, is equality. I couldn't agree more.

<-- I realize that comes across as sounding a bit sarcastic and blunt, but I actually mean that.

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

THAT, sums up your attitude COMPLETELY

Yep, sure, there you go again. We know fathers never get maternity leave, or just a few days. I'm comparing the situation of a birth mother and an adoptive mother, to make the point that adoptive mothers have pretty much the same rights as fathers do, because they haven't given birth to the child.

You really are desperate, aren't you?

And as for your views on adoption, wow. It's 'just a child'? Parents choose to go and adopt a child? What are you talking about? If a couple is unable to conceive, they may well have to adopt. Other than the fact that the women didn't push out the baby herself, where's the difference? Do you see adopted children as accessories whereas natural children are 'real'?

Nevyn

There is paid adoptive leave, there is a state payment called adoptive leave benefit.
Dude do your research

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/leave-and-holidays/adoptive_leave

* Where to apply

Information

Under the Adoptive Leave Act 1995, as amended by the Adoptive Leave Act 2005 only the adoptive mother is entitled to avail of adoptive leave from employment, except in the case where a male is the sole adopter.

If you start adoptive leave on or after 1 March 2007 you are entitled to 24 weeks' adoptive leave. You are also entitled to take 16 weeks' additional unpaid adoptive leave after your adoptive leave ends – see below.
Pay during adoptive leave

Your right to adoptive leave means that you have a right to a period of leave from employment without pay. However, your contract of employment may provide for payment during the period of leave. If you have enough PRSI contributions you may qualify for Adoptive Benefit which is paid by the Department of Social Protection while you are on adoptive leave.
Additional unpaid adoptive leave

From 1 March 2007 you are also entitled to take up to a further 16 weeks' additional adoptive leave, but this period is not covered by Adoptive Benefit, nor is your employer obliged, unless otherwise agreed, to make any payment during this period. If you become ill you can ask your employer if you can terminate your unpaid additional adoptive leave. If your employer agrees you would then transfer onto sick leave and may receive Illness Benefit or sick pay.
Before the adoption

Adopting parents are entitled to paid time off work to attend preparation classes and pre-adoption meetings with social workers or Health Service Executive (HSE) officials required during the pre-adoption process.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884152]So keep campaigning to change it. No, it isn't fair. We all know that. But women were discriminated against in virtually every area for years. They fought for change and got it. So I'm not quite sure why men keep bringing up the same few (and they are very few) points and saying it's not fair.[/QUOTE]

There are not very few. For the love of god, please go back to my original post and read the link. There you will find hundreds.... not a few.

Trying to debate that the law isnt sexist against men is utterly futile.

You have yet to point out a single law or aspect of the law where women are discriminated against. Yet you say there are even more than men. Do share.

dr.bollocko

Gary4279 wrote: »

Dean, ..... go and knock-her-around!

Chairman Meow wrote: »

I cant falcon punch a woman without society ****ting all over me. Its political correctness gone mad.

If you have nothing to add to this thread then don't post at all.

ScumLord

I thought it was a woman's world too but in fact it's not. Women took control of society back in the 50s, they where recognised as the important buyer in the home and all advertising and manufacturing was then aimed at them. This was fine but women gave the world to children, from the 70s on children take over the world. Everythings child centred, any manual labour is choked by safety regulations from the nanny state, all films have more special effects than words in the script. All electronics are so easy a child could use them, children often seem to just know how to work electronics no training required, is that odd? I think it is, the baby empire will soon be upon us, the under tens have been planing this for years, I estimate roughly nine years, don't say you haven't been warned.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884187]Yep, sure, there you go again. We know fathers never get maternity leave, or just a few days. I'm comparing the situation of a birth mother and an adoptive mother, to make the point that adoptive mothers have pretty much the same rights as fathers do, because they haven't given birth to the child.

You really are desperate, aren't you?[/QUOTE]

Why are you comparing the situation of an adoptive mother and a father? this is about gender equality.

Also, as it happens, an adoptive mother gets the same rights to paid leave as a birth mother as outlined below in a post. So there goes that argument down the toilet.

Desparate? Now whose being bullying?

You cant explain any of you points, half of them have been proven wrong in subsequent posts, glaze over requests to clarify and also make bold claims such as women are discriminated more in law than men ... without a single SHRED of evidence.

from where I'm standing ... your argument is clutching at straws. Not mine.

sponsoredwalk

Dean0088 wrote: »

So, you solution, is equality. I couldn't agree more.

<-- I realize that comes across as sounding a bit sarcastic and blunt, but I actually mean that.

No it's true, it's the only argument in this thread with any merit.

WindSock wrote: »

I see a lot of support and encouragement from women here when men complain about sexism in ads and parental rights/paternity leave.

I think that sums up how women would feel about it. There's also the obvious question: "Why would a woman want her husband to be forced to go off to work after 3 days when she could really use his help, would obviously want the father to bond with the baby?".

The way it has kind of come across on this thread is that it's womens fault or something, nobody was able to point out that it's policy that's to blame.

But calling the law 'sexist' implies that women somehow benefit from this law or want it to continue, if people understand what that word actually means...

When people make this kind of argument there is no hope...

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

There is paid adoptive leave, there is a state payment called adoptive leave benefit.
Dude do your research

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/employment/employment-rights-and-conditions/leave-and-holidays/adoptive_leave

Varies depending on the country. And adoptive leave, where it exists, applies equally to both parents. Where it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist for either parent. Proving my point that the main reason women get so much maternity leave is because of the physical side, not because people love to discriminate against men.

davyjose

Dean0088 wrote: »

Nail. On. Head.

I'm still waiting on a response. Obviously a little bit of an inconvenient truth.

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

Why are you comparing the situation of an adoptive mother and a father? this is about gender equality.

Also, as it happens, an adoptive mother gets the same rights to paid leave as a birth mother as outlined below in a post. So there goes that argument down the toilet.

Desparate? Now whose being bullying?

You cant explain any of you points, half of them have been proven wrong in subsequent posts, glaze over requests to clarify and also make bold claims such as women are discriminated more in law than men ... without a single SHRED of evidence.

from where I'm standing ... your argument is clutching at straws. Not mine.

Really? Point out to me where you see the word 'mother' in that post.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884187]

And as for your views on adoption, wow. It's 'just a child'? Parents choose to go and adopt a child? What are you talking about? If a couple is unable to conceive, they may well have to adopt. Other than the fact that the women didn't push out the baby herself, where's the difference? Do you see adopted children as accessories whereas natural children are 'real'?[/QUOTE]

Once again, you edited a post after I quoted from it. Nevertheless, I'll respond even though you rarely respond to my points with evidence or actual substance.

As for the response to this point: We have already found out that adoptive mothers get more rights than birth fathers.

As for the question highlighted in bold, I'm not going to dignify something that sick, assuming and degrading to adoption with any kind of an answer.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884294]Really? Point out to me where you see the word 'mother' in that post.[/QUOTE]

Alrigtey then I will (this is becoming like shooting fish in a barrel).

Information

Under the Adoptive Leave Act 1995, as amended by the Adoptive Leave Act 2005 only the adoptive mother is entitled to avail of adoptive leave from employment, except in the case where a male is the sole adopter.

If you start adoptive leave on or after 1 March 2007 you are entitled to 24 weeks' adoptive leave. You are also entitled to take 16 weeks' additional unpaid adoptive leave after your adoptive leave ends – see below.
Pay during adoptive leave

Your right to adoptive leave means that you have a right to a period of leave from employment without pay. However, your contract of employment may provide for payment during the period of leave. If you have enough PRSI contributions you may qualify for Adoptive Benefit which is paid by the Department of Social Protection while you are on adoptive leave.
Additional unpaid adoptive leave

From 1 March 2007 you are also entitled to take up to a further 16 weeks' additional adoptive leave, but this period is not covered by Adoptive Benefit, nor is your employer obliged, unless otherwise agreed, to make any payment during this period. If you become ill you can ask your employer if you can terminate your unpaid additional adoptive leave. If your employer agrees you would then transfer onto sick leave and may receive Illness Benefit or sick pay.
Before the adoption

Adopting parents are entitled to paid time off work to attend preparation classes and pre-adoption meetings with social workers or Health Service Executive (HSE) officials required during the pre-adoption process.

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

Once again, you edited a post after I quoted from it. Nevertheless, I'll respond even though you rarely respond to my points with evidence or actual substance.

As for the response to this point: We have already found out that adoptive mothers get more rights than birth fathers.

As for the question highlighted in bold, I'm not going to dignify something that sick, assuming and degrading to adoption with any kind of an answer.

Oh, I'm SO sorry, how DARE I edit my post before you've finished writing yours? You are aware that you are SUPPOSED to edit posts and not double post where possible?

Adoptive mothers get more rights than birth fathers. Adoptive fathers get more rights than birth fathers. How on earth are you still arguing about this?

As for things which are degrading to adoption, I think 'it's just a child' is right up there. Perhaps you want to explain what you meant by that.

As for the adoptive mother - yes, you're right about that. My apologies. But I have never claimed that Irish family law was fair. It IS really backward. I live in a place where adoptive fathers and mothers have equal rights to leave (or not) and I believe in this case, it should be equal whether or not it's a single person or a couple adopting. I think it should be able to be shared between the woman and the man, or the couple can decide for themselves which of them wants to stay with the child while the other works.

Fukuyama

davyjose wrote: »

I'm still waiting on a response. Obviously a little bit of an inconvenient truth.

Dont hold your breath.

I've made several points which seem to hard for her to swallow. I'm still awaiting anything which could be called a genuine response that is based upon fact, not her notions.

Despite repeated calls for her to respond as such.... I await in vain.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884341]

Adoptive mothers get more rights than birth fathers. Adoptive fathers get more rights than birth fathers. How on earth are you still arguing about this?

As for things which are degrading to adoption, I think 'it's just a child' is right up there. Perhaps you want to explain what you meant by that.[/QUOTE]

I have highlighted, in bold and huge letters in the legislation, as you requested, as to where adoptive mothers get more rights than birth father. What more od you want? <--- please answer this

Also, please tell me, in that context you allude to, where I degraded a human being to being "just a child".

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884341]

As for the adoptive mother - yes, you're right about that. My apologies. But I have never claimed that Irish family law was fair. It IS really backward. I live in a place where adoptive fathers and mothers have equal rights to leave (or not) and I believe in this case, it should be equal whether or not it's a single person or a couple adopting. I think it should be able to be shared between the woman and the man, or the couple can decide for themselves which of them wants to stay with the child while the other works.[/QUOTE]

Okay ... but why are you still arguing then. This is the second or thirt time you've gone back on your argument now. What you think is great. What I think is great. We should all have equal right, right? But we're debating the fact that WE DONT. And you say that women are discriminated aginst more in law than men. Yet you havent highlighted any. I highlighted HUNDREDS aginst men in my first post.

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

I have highlighted, in bold and huge letters in the legislation, as you requested, as to where adoptive mothers get more rights than birth father. What more od you want? <--- please answer this

Also, please tell me, in that context you allude to, where I degraded a human being to being "just a child".

I edited my post when I read that. That's how these boards work. Sometimes you see new info after you've posted. It actually isn't possible to see new posts while you're still writing yours.

As for the comment, re-read your post.

As for this argument, I'm done. I have to go out. If you seriously want to stay here all day claiming women have it easier than men because of a few points, go right ahead.

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

Okay ... but why are you still arguing then. This is the second or thirt time you've gone back on your argument now. What you think is great. What I think is great. We should all have equal right, right? But we're debating the fact that WE DONT. And you say that women are discriminated aginst more in law than men. Yet you havent highlighted any. I highlighted HUNDREDS aginst men in my first post.

SO TRY TO CHANGE IT.

Society isn't fair. It's never been fair. Black people were slaves. Women weren't allowed to work. People in those communities got up and did something about it. They didn't rant and moan on the Internet about how hard it was for them. If you insist on only looking at laws and rules, sure, go ahead. I'm sure it's illegal to pay a woman less than a man. It happens all the time. I'm sure it's illegal for a boss to sexually harass his female staff. It happens all the time. Both have happened to me in the last two years. But hey, who cares, right? I get loads of maternity leave, whoopiieeee!

I'm out.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884426]I edited my post when I read that. That's how these boards work. Sometimes you see new info after you've posted. It actually isn't possible to see new posts while you're still writing yours.

As for the comment, re-read your post.

As for this argument, I'm done. I have to go out. If you seriously want to stay here all day claiming women have it easier than men because of a few points, go right ahead.[/QUOTE]

Are you illiterate?

You keep saying 'a few points' even though I linked to hundreds in my opening post. Cop the **** on.

I did re-read my post. You are in the wrong. In a very laughable and comical way. Debating, quoting, paraphrasing and general knowledge did not shine through in your post. Or any of them.

"I'm done" - I coulnt have said it better myself.

Nevyn

How is it a woman's world when she doesnt' have a choice when it comes to being expected by society and the state to be the main hands on carer of children?

Surely if it was a woman's world in that context she could have some choice in the matter?
She wouldn't be the default parent be it in the home or legally.

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

Are you illiterate?

You keep saying 'a few points' even though I linked to hundreds in my opening post. Cop the **** on.

I did re-read my post. You are in the wrong. In a very laughable and comical way. Debating, quoting, paraphrasing and general knowledge did not shine through in your post. Or any of them.

"I'm done" - I coulnt have said it better myself.

Am I illiterate? Come back and ask that when you've learned how to read, spell and use grammar. I normally don't pick on how people write, but come on!

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884489]SO TRY TO CHANGE IT.

Society isn't fair. It's never been fair. Black people were slaves. Women weren't allowed to work. People in those communities got up and did something about it. They didn't rant and moan on the Internet about how hard it was for them. If you insist on only looking at laws and rules, sure, go ahead. I'm sure it's illegal to pay a woman less than a man. It happens all the time. I'm sure it's illegal for a boss to sexually harass his female staff. It happens all the time. Both have happened to me in the last two years. But hey, who cares, right? I get loads of maternity leave, whoopiieeee!

I'm out.[/QUOTE]

Femal -> sexual harassment never happens then? It does - but it's less reported.

They didn't rant and moan on the Internet about how hard it was for them - the Internet wasnt invented. Now that it is, they do. You're a shining example of that.

"If you insist on only looking at laws and rules" - I didnt, I also delved into society. But you chose to ignore that.

Your sarcasim towards the topic shows your argument has floundered and cant be saved.

davyjose

Thaedydal wrote: »

How is it a woman's world when she doesnt' have a choice when it comes to being expected by society and the state to be the main hands on carer of children?

Surely if it was a woman's world in that context she could have some choice in the matter?
She wouldn't be the default parent be it in the home or legally.

It's catch 22: if the leave was offered to either parent, then I'm sure the assumption that the woman would be the main carer would be nullified somewhat.

Fukuyama

Thaedydal wrote: »

How is it a woman's world when she doesnt' have a choice when it comes to being expected by society and the state to be the main hands on carer of children?

Yes, she does. The state does not expect her to be the main carer. That was removed from the constitution ages ago. Nature, does expect this however. A point women and the state exploit in courts.

Surely if it was a woman's world in that context she could have some choice in the matter?
She wouldn't be the default parent be it in the home or legally.
You're right, women shouldt be the default parent. But both feminist movements and the state want it this way, at the expense of men who want to be fathers.

- Dean.

Fukuyama

[quote=[Deleted User];65884533]Am I illiterate? Come back and ask that when you've learned how to read, spell and use grammar. I normally don't pick on how people write, but come on![/QUOTE]

It just so happens this is a discussion forum. I wanted to know if you read my points and used them in your argument. You didn't.

I was a full-time freelance writer for over two years so I like to think I can string a few words together.

www.deansherwin.com
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Dean%20Sherwin
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/tas-free-easy-to-use-financial-accounting-software/ <-- staff writer for a year with MUO
<--- evidence of my above claim. You should try that out.

Banned Account

I thnk that the whole "downtrodden" women issue is overdone as well. The fact is that there are inequalities in society for both sexes. Can we not just accept that biengs who have many fundamental differences should not seek equality with each other in all areas - we are different in many ways, we should celebrate our differences and stop whinging at each other.

If feminism has such an issue with a society which they believe is wrong as it is informed by male norms, then why are they seeking equality with its presumtions? The argument doesn't make sense to me.

Dean0088

Dean0088 wrote: »

It just so happens this is a discussion forum. I wanted to know if you read my points and used them in your argument. You didn't.

I was a full-time freelance writer for over two years so I like to think I can string a few words together.

www.deansherwin.com
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/profiles/view/Dean%20Sherwin
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/tas-free-easy-to-use-financial-accounting-software/ <-- staff writer for a year with MUO
<--- evidence of my above claim. You should try that out.

I'm sure you like to think so. Don't we all? I'm a translator and proofreader, so a large part of my job is correcting mistakes in published material. I find plenty of them.

Nevyn

Yes, she does. The state does not expect her to be the main carer. That was removed from the constitution ages ago. Nature, does expect this however. A point women and the state exploit in courts.

By only having maternity leave and by having it extended it makes the mother the default hand on parent and the responsibilty becomes far from equal, and oh yeah it's state mandatory leave which is set up that way.

You're right, women shouldt be the default parent. But both feminist movements and the state want it this way, at the expense of men who want to be fathers.

Really? which feminist movements have that as state policy in this country, link to them please.

If men really wanted paternity leave and better rights to thier kids then they sould be loobying like fúck for them and they should encouraging all Dad's to be taking up an equal share of the parenting in the home from changing nappies to doing homework ect.

We still have a lot of people who grew up with the mother being the parent to do it all and then when they have kids default to that so that women even when working the same hours(or more) as a man still has the greater % of housework and childcare in the home.

Banned Account

Thaedydal wrote: »

By only having maternity leave and by having it extended it makes the mother the default hand on parent and the responsibilty becomes far from equal, and oh yeah it's state mandatory leave which is set up that way.

If men really wanted paternity leave and better rights to thier kids then they sould be loobying like fúck for them and they should encouraging all Dad's to be taking up an equal share of the parenting in the home from changing nappies to doing homework ect.

There is another line of thought though, that if the womens movement were to lobby for equal paternity leave rights, there would be less purported discrimination in the workplace as there would no longer be any reason to hire men over women. You could argue that by not advocating paternity leave strongly, some aspects of the women's movement may be perpetuating discrimination in certain areas.

PK2008

I can honestly say that I never in my whole life actually heard a woman say to me that they are oppressed or discriminated against becasue of their sex, and I have never actually heard a man say that to me either.

The only time Ive heard about peoples feelings towards this issue is either when a very specific court case that touches on it is being reported or the hundreds of boards threads that deal with it in a hysterical "world is going to end because of this injustice" way.

I am a man, I have never felt discrimated against because of it, I have never knowingly discrimated against a woman because of it and anyone who has been discrimated against because of their sex should take it to court and let them deal with it