In what ways are men discriminated against?

The Corinthian

jaja321 wrote: »

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.

Fair enough, but if so it is your position, not society's. It is like suggesting that women need not have the vote, because they can influence the vote of their husband or partner - I could equally suggest that I would decide together with my partner who 'we' will vote for, but that is still up to my own choose to allow my partner that right. And that is not good enough.

What I said was that parental leave, might be an avenue for making inways to change. That is all.

I disagree. It will be sold as a victory for father's rights, thus decreasing pressure for further reform, when in reality it does nothing for father's rights. Men would still have no rights to their children and act accordingly; time and time again we've only seen men actually taking more active roles in the raising of their children when they are afforded actual rights to do so, such as in Sweden - otherwise all you get is paternity leave that only a fraction of men will bother taking up.

To me the proposed changes to paternity leave and guardianship are almost steps backwards. The former for reasons I've already stated and the latter because as part of the reform, those few rights that existed through guardianship will actually be abolished. Things are not getting better for men in Ireland, they're actually getting worse.

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.

You're not trying to but at present you have to; you hold all the cards, whether you want them or not. And for every mother who thinks like you there is another who will think the opposite and choose not to bestow those rights.

I accept that you are not actually disagreeing with me, but you need to look at the root cause for this inequality if you wish to address it and I think you've not yet done this. This is not your fault, it's just that often people cannot see the wood for the trees.

Atomicjuicer

The Corinthian wrote: »

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

What about the names on the birth cert?

jaja321

The Corinthian wrote: »

Fair enough, but if so it is your position, not society's. It is like suggesting that women need not have the vote, because they can influence the vote of their husband or partner - I could equally suggest that I would decide together with my partner who 'we' will vote for, but that is still up to my own choose to allow my partner that right. And that is not good enough.

I disagree. It will be sold as a victory for father's rights, thus decreasing pressure for further reform, when in reality it does nothing for father's rights. Men would still have no rights to their children and act accordingly; time and time again we've only seen men actually taking more active roles in the raising of their children when they are afforded actual rights to do so, such as in Sweden - otherwise all you get is paternity leave that only a fraction of men will bother taking up.

To me the proposed changes to paternity leave and guardianship are almost steps backwards. The former for reasons I've already stated and the latter because as part of the reform, those few rights that existed through guardianship will actually be abolished. Things are not getting better for men in Ireland, they're actually getting worse.

You're not trying to but at present you have to; you hold all the cards, whether you want them or not. And for every mother who thinks like you there is another who will think the opposite and choose not to bestow those rights.

I accept that you are not actually disagreeing with me, but you need to look at the root cause for this inequality if you wish to address it and I think you've not yet done this. This is not your fault, it's just that often people cannot see the wood for the trees.

You only quoted the part I said about parental leave - I said legislation needs to support fathers rights in fairness.

There are root causes for all kinds of discrimination/inequality. I'm not suggesting these shouldn't be addressed or that I have the answers at all, all I'm saying is that legilsation is one way to start changing things and attitudes over time. Anyway, I'm out, as I feel like I'm just going around in circles. :-)

The Corinthian

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

What about the names on the birth cert?

They're just names. Having a name on an Irish birth cert confers neither rights nor responsibilities in itself.

jaja321 wrote: »

There are root causes for all kinds of discrimination/inequality. I'm not suggesting these shouldn't be addressed or that I have the answers at all, all I'm saying is that legilsation is one way to start changing things and attitudes over time. Anyway, I'm out, as I feel like I'm just going around in circles. :-)

I accept this is what you're saying, I just disagree that it will do anything over time and if anything will slow down the pace of reform that could make a difference.

Jesus Wept

Dudess wrote: »

I agree with pretty much all of these, but comparing topless women to topless men? Lol

I don't see why not, it's just how we are conditioned to think.

Sul wrote: »

Thank you! Generally it is men who discriminate against men. All those laws were made by men too. The reason why car insurance is generally cheaper for women is because (and you lads might not like this) men have more accidents and drive more recklessly than women. Its not discrimination, its the insurer looking out for their money!!
Women only gyms or hours are there because there is more demand for women who dont want to mix with the opposite sex. There are more women who are more insecure about wearing a swimming costume in from of men so thats why its there. It could also be a religious thing in your area too. Ask the gym. Also those particular women may pay an extra charge for using the gym for those 2 evenings a week. Im sure if you and a gang of fellas from the gym asked for a men only hour you'd probably get one as the gym will most likely want to keep customers happy.

As for the whole minding children issue well I dont think its really discrimination its just being safe. More and more we hear of these horrible stories that parents just cant help but worry. A lot of these crimes are about power and aggression and we are just programmed to see males as being the powerful, dominant aggressive ones. Its history. I dont look at every man as a potential sexual preditor but I would be a little more cautious and wary of them if walking on my own. Its society too im afraid. I would find it a bit hard to engage in a conversation with a strange man in a pub and give him my number. Id have to get to know him, know his friends, before I could contemplate going on a date. Its just the way things are now, you can never be too safe...

Sul wrote: »

I am certainly not saying that we should treat the opposite sex as potential sex offenders!!! I am simply stating that because of the stories that are out their parents are naturally going to be on their guard.

Women can be sex offenders too. I would be wary of my child around all strangers and people I didnt know too well!!

As for the car insurance, ok I would agree that you could call it discrimination. But its insurance. No company is going to give life insurance to a person who jumps out of a plane every day for a living....and if you are a first time driver how are they to know what you are like behind the wheel? They base their policies on statistics. The more you drive with out accident the lower your insurance goes. But they have to start with something and safeguard their money....

Your posts are retarded. I'll be sure to invoke history and statistics to rationalise gender based discrimination you suffer in future.

Sul wrote: »

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

You protect your children how you see fit, it may not be as effective as it could be but it will be how you see fit.

Zulu wrote: »

I'm surprised no one has mentioned pensions yet, so here's another one to the list:
Pensions.

Women are entitled to the state pension 5 years before men, so men are forced to work longer. It's worth considering that they are seeking to push out this period, so men and women will have to work longer, however they are making no effort to equalise the gap.
This problem is compounded even further when you consider that women live longer lives, enjoying longer retirements, and greater pensions.

Are you sure that is the case in Ireland? I know it is the case in the UK (but It think they will be making changes.

I actually sent a few emails to Cineworld a couple of years ago challenging them as I noticed that there prices are different for men and women based on 'OAP status, Senior Citizen Women 60+ and Men 65+'.

They weren't understanding.

jaja321 wrote: »

He has the choice to wear a condom in fairness.

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.

BREAKING NEWS

Condoms are not always effective.

Stay tuned for further informative updates.

jaja321

Andy Carroll wrote: »

BREAKING NEWS

Condoms are not always effective.

Stay tuned for further informative updates.

Thanks for that amazing insight. And for reading the rest of what I posted.

Jesus Wept

Ivana Bacik's posts are retarded too, in fact I think they are psychotic.

jaja321 wrote: »

Thanks for that amazing insight. And for reading the rest of what I posted.

I did, you said more than once.

jaja321

Andy Carroll wrote: »

Ivana Bacik's posts are retarded too, in fact I think they are psychotic.



I did, you said more than once.

I said men can wear condoms in order to try and protect themselves from an unplanned pregnancy. Just as women can use contraception.

SugarHigh

jaja321 wrote: »

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.

How does that work?

If a woman wants to go to England for an abortion what can the man do about it? Can he stop her or sue her afterwards? The decision can't really be joint can it?

In England what if the man wants an abortion and the women doesn't?

Their decision will never be joint unless they happened to agree with each other in the first place.

Zulu

Zulu wrote: »

This problem is compounded even further when you consider that women live longer lives, enjoying longer retirements, and greater pensions.

Annuity costs for women are more expensive because of longevity

jaja321

SugarHigh wrote: »

How does that work?

If a woman wants to go to England for an abortion what can the man do about it? Can he stop her or sue her afterwards? The decision can't really be joint can it?

In England what if the man wants an abortion and the women doesn't?

Their decision will never be joint unless they happened to agree with each other in the first place.

Yeah that’s fair enough. I guess I was saying that I don’t buy into this whole idea that women should have sole control of the decision that is made, which some people believe.

Aswerty

bluewolf wrote: »

Annuity costs for women are more expensive because of longevity

Annuity rates are being changed just like the car insurance as far as I'm aware.

I see that now, though I've heard no talk of it. That's daft...

Aswerty

bluewolf wrote: »

I see that now, though I've heard no talk of it. That's daft...

It got some air time when the car insurance changes came out but wasn't nearly as big a story in the medias eyes. I'm going to be honest and say I'm not sure how annuity rates work but I don't see how insurance based gender discrimination is fair. Average life spans mean very little to individuals so why would their quotes be subjective to the average figure. If a man dies at 100 and a woman at 60 what does the average life span mean to them?

Aswerty

Aswerty wrote: »

It got some air time when the car insurance changes came out but wasn't nearly as big a story in the medias eyes. I'm going to be honest and say I'm not sure how annuity rates work but I don't see how insurance based gender discrimination is fair. Average life spans mean very little to individuals so why would their quotes be subjective to the average figure. If a man dies at 100 and a woman at 60 what does the average life span mean to them?

That's the risk of buying one out, all right.
It's split up because of the cost to the company in paying out a pension longer than expected, balanced with the fact you obviously can't charge a lot more than you expect someone to live. You look at how long they're expected to live on average, how much you expect to pay out over the period, any expenses etc, and there you go.

the_syco

jaja321 wrote: »

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.

You're referring to a form of vasectomy.

Aswerty

bluewolf wrote: »

That's the risk of buying one out, all right.
It's split up because of the cost to the company in paying out a pension longer than expected, balanced with the fact you obviously can't charge a lot more than you expect someone to live. You look at how long they're expected to live on average, how much you expect to pay out over the period, any expenses etc, and there you go.

Sounds fairly straight forward but the issue is that using gender as a criteria in generating the average is no longer allowed because it is considered discriminatory. Similarly using race or skin colour as a criteria would be considered discrimination.

Maguined

jaja321 wrote: »

Yeah that’s fair enough. I guess I was saying that I don’t buy into this whole idea that women should have sole control of the decision that is made, which some people believe.

Don't we all believe that? I think most people would agree with women having sole control of the decision however it's the consequences and responsibilities that result in her decision that people would differ on.

I don't know anyone that would suggest if a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to abort but the man does not that the women should be forced into continuing with the pregnancy. The only suggestion I have ever heard is the removal of future responsibility from a man who does not want to be a father if the woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy and keep the child. The man cannot over ride the woman's decision regarding the pregnancy, only his future responsibility of her decision.

Aswerty

I think the following link is the male contraception in question:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090505/male_injection_090505/

As discussed in the bastion of truth and righteousness:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055556880

Aswerty

Maguined wrote: »

Don't we all believe that? I think most people would agree with women having sole control of the decision however it's the consequences and responsibilities that result in her decision that people would differ on.

I don't know anyone that would suggest if a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to abort but the man does not that the women should be forced into continuing with the pregnancy. The only suggestion I have ever heard is the removal of future responsibility from a man who does not want to be a father if the woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy and keep the child. The man cannot over ride the woman's decision regarding the pregnancy, only his future responsibility of her decision.

Yes I've seen the idea bandied around and I think there is a lot of merit to it. A legal abortion that allows a father to abdicate all rights :pac: and responsibilities to his offspring to be. The time window for enacting a legal abortion would coincide with the time period a natural abortion could take place.

jaja321

the_syco wrote: »

You're referring to a form of vasectomy.

http://techcitement.com/culture/the-best-birth-control-in-the-world-is-for-men/

I actually think it would be a great way for men to be able to control their fertility.

jaja321

Maguined wrote: »

Don't we all believe that? I think most people would agree with women having sole control of the decision however it's the consequences and responsibilities that result in her decision that people would differ on.

I don't know anyone that would suggest if a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to abort but the man does not that the women should be forced into continuing with the pregnancy. The only suggestion I have ever heard is the removal of future responsibility from a man who does not want to be a father if the woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy and keep the child. The man cannot over ride the woman's decision regarding the pregnancy, only his future responsibility of her decision.

Just meant that it should be consultative. Often times decisions are made without any consultation. Both parties have a right to input is what I'm saying.

Pawwed Rig

Maguined wrote: »

Don't we all believe that? I think most people would agree with women having sole control of the decision however it's the consequences and responsibilities that result in her decision that people would differ on.

I don't know anyone that would suggest if a woman finds herself pregnant and wants to abort but the man does not that the women should be forced into continuing with the pregnancy. The only suggestion I have ever heard is the removal of future responsibility from a man who does not want to be a father if the woman chooses to continue with her pregnancy and keep the child. The man cannot over ride the woman's decision regarding the pregnancy, only his future responsibility of her decision.

Well there have been women prevented from travelling for an abortion in the past. So historically they didn't have sole control. If the government ever introduce the A case legislation it will be the sole choice of the woman. Without going into a whole abortion thread it would be tough on a man who wanted a baby and having no control when the woman decides to terminate. Might be a solution if either party up to a certain point in the pregnancy could give up their rights in favour of the other. Would be a mess to enforce though

Zulu

jaja321 wrote: »

Just meant that it should be consultative. Often times decisions are made without any consultation. Both parties have a right to input is what I'm saying.

How does that work? (not having a go here, but...) "Consultative" is pretty useless to the man who's child is about to be killed/destroyed. Or for that matter for the man who's about to be signed up to a couple of decades financal support. It's lip service.

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

How does that work? (not having a go here, but...) "Consultative" is pretty useless to the man who's child is about to be killed/destroyed. Or for that matter for the man who's about to be signed up to a couple of decades financal support. It's lip service.

I’m just saying that in some cases decisions are made without any consultation or even knowing, let alone considering, how the other person feels about a situation. The ultimate decision of what to do about a pregnancy is pretty much always going to be the woman’s, because it is the woman who has to carry the baby, and give birth. As another poster said though, joint decisions can be made about responsibilities and consequences coming out of that decision. Please don’t use words like kill in relation to abortion though, it’s pretty inflammatory.

Maguined

jaja321 wrote: »

Just meant that it should be consultative. Often times decisions are made without any consultation. Both parties have a right to input is what I'm saying.

I just wanted to point out the difference between "control" and "input". Giving input is not a right however, if you became pregnant and you decided to consult with your partner and listen to their input you are being generous and giving them a privilege as they have no right, he has no right to even be told he is potentially going to be a father. No matter how much you consult with your partner and how much input you listen to from them as the women you will still have total and abject control over the pregnancy (which I completely agree with) it's the consequences of this decision and the lack of control men have in these consequential responsibilities that I disagree with.

Zulu

jaja321 wrote: »

I’m just saying that in some cases

...ah no I appricate that, however I'm just pointing out that it's precious little in fairness. As I'm sure you also appricate.

jaja321 wrote: »

Please don’t use words like kill in relation to abortion though, it’s pretty inflammatory.

Terminate/destroy/kill. Whatever. It's all the same.

Maguined

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Well there have been women prevented from travelling for an abortion in the past. So historically they didn't have sole control. If the government ever introduce the A case legislation it will be the sole choice of the woman. Without going into a whole abortion thread it would be tough on a man who wanted a baby and having no control when the woman decides to terminate. Might be a solution if either party up to a certain point in the pregnancy could give up their rights in favour of the other. Would be a mess to enforce though

If either party could give up their rights this would be voluntary and so there would be nothing to enforce?

jaja321

Zulu wrote: »

...ah no I appricate that, however I'm just pointing out that it's precious little in fairness. As I'm sure you also appricate.

Terminate/destroy/kill. Whatever. It's all the same.

Just saying that people reading that, who may have direct experience of it, may find that terminology really unhelpful. I don’t want to get into an ethical debate about abortion though.

tripe man

If you're a female and you're unattractive, you get an unlimited supply of guys fawning at your feet. If you're a male and you're unattractive, prepare to be treated like nothing less than a cockroach by women.

Maguined

tripe man wrote: »

If you're a female and you're unattractive, you get an unlimited supply of guys fawning at your feet. If you're a male and you're unattractive, prepare to be treated like nothing less than a cockroach by women.

Attraction is not discriminatory, it's not really a choice, you are either attracted to someone or you are not. Also you do not have a right to be found attracted by someone so it's a non issue.

tripe man

Maguined wrote: »

Attraction is not discriminatory, it's not really a choice, you are either attracted to someone or you are not. Also you do not have a right to be found attracted by someone so it's a non issue.

What tripe. Why does someone's rights have to be involved in order for them to be being discriminated against? Russian women do not discriminate against me for my looks, Irish women do, plain and simple. It's not human nature, just this misandric country.

sod off to russia and stop bitching then

Maguined

tripe man wrote: »

What tripe. Why does someone's rights have to be involved in order for them to be being discriminated against? Russian women do not discriminate against me for my looks, Irish women do, plain and simple. It's not human nature, just this misandric country.

So because Irish women don't find you attractive they are misandric? So are you a misandrist because you don't find Irish men attractive? Is your sexual preference of heterosexuality discriminatory?

Care to answer my questions? Would you date a women you found unattractive? You have formed a deep and rewarding emotional connection with these 18 year olds online?

TONY DAY

Ever notice on Tv (especially British soap operas) when a Women decides to break up with her husband/boy friend its because he was a prick to her!!
And if i man breaks up with his Wife/Girlfriend its because he is a prick!!
A lot of women i know actually believe this. They can never see that maybe it's the womans fault for the break up.
As Jack Nicholsons character said in "As Good as it Gets"!! When he writes female characters he "thinks of a man and takes away reason and accountability"!! How true!!

The Corinthian

SugarHigh wrote: »

Their decision will never be joint unless they happened to agree with each other in the first place.

Presuming they don't change their mind, which women can and sometimes do. Fertility is just another area where men are discriminated against in law, IMHO.

tripe man wrote: »

If you're a female and you're unattractive, you get an unlimited supply of guys fawning at your feet. If you're a male and you're unattractive, prepare to be treated like nothing less than a cockroach by women.

That may be discrimination based on looks, but hardly gender. And if Irish men are fawning at the feet of ugly women, it's typically because they're drunk.

As Brendan Behan once said; "I've never gone to bed with an ugly woman, but by God I've woken up with a few".

This thread is going off course methinks.

TONY DAY

Serious question here. Does anybody believe that the current trend of "Men Bashing" is anyway linked to the fact there proportionately more Men are likely to commit suicide than Women?

Pawwed Rig

Maguined wrote: »

If either party could give up their rights this would be voluntary and so there would be nothing to enforce?

Was thinking more if say the woman tells the man he can have it early on where all is agreed etc and then decides later that she has changed her mind. Who would win the court case? I would guess the child would be awarded to the mother regardless of agreements/contracts.

I believe it has happened before in relation to surrogacy (no source for that though)

Pawwed Rig

Maguined wrote: »

Attraction is not discriminatory, it's not really a choice, you are either attracted to someone or you are not. Also you do not have a right to be found attracted by someone so it's a non issue.

Have to say I was gonna bring up this point aswell. Women tend to get treated better by both men and women than men do.
For example when a woman starts a job she will be taken in by the group of girls and welcomed. The men in the office will make an effort to introduce themselves and pass the time of day, especially if it is a preety woman). Men have more trouble initially fitting in in a new environment. Women aren't as welcoming in that they assume he will be looked after by 'the guys' whereas the mean can be standoffish.

I realise these are gross generalisations but I have found that to be the case in some environments I have worked in.

bluewolf wrote: »

sod off to russia and stop bitching then

Not very constructive.

TONY DAY wrote: »

Serious question here. Does anybody believe that the current trend of "Men Bashing" is anyway linked to the fact there proportionately more Men are likely to commit suicide than Women?

Absolutely.

miec

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.

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is that if a man does not want to be a father then it is up to him to take the steps to ensure he does not become one.

I say this for a number of reasons. It is a fact but very unfair that if a woman gets pregnant then she gets to decide if she aborts the child or keeps it. That is a fact because men do not carry babies in their bodies, women do. As such this puts the deciding factor on having a child to the woman.

If a man does not want a child, he has to take steps to ensure he does not get the woman pregnant, it is the only piece of control he has and the only method of contraception available to a man is a condom. He can also use the withdrawal method or not come at all. The condom is probably the best out of them all. Not 100% guaranteed but about the best. There is one other thing he can and that is meet / have sex with a woman who does not want children and who is clear on this factor because she will ensure she does not get pregnant by using contraceptive or getting sterilised.

It may not be fair but it is how things are.

Galwayguy35

miec wrote: »

The short answer is yes.

The long answer is that if a man does not want to be a father then it is up to him to take the steps to ensure he does not become one.

I say this for a number of reasons. It is a fact but very unfair that if a woman gets pregnant then she gets to decide if she aborts the child or keeps it. That is a fact because men do not carry babies in their bodies, women do. As such this puts the deciding factor on having a child to the woman.

If a man does not want a child, he has to take steps to ensure he does not get the woman pregnant, it is the only piece of control he has and the only method of contraception available to a man is a condom. He can also use the withdrawal method or not come at all. The condom is probably the best out of them all. Not 100% guaranteed but about the best. There is one other thing he can and that is meet / have sex with a woman who does not want children and who is clear on this factor because she will ensure she does not get pregnant by using contraceptive or getting sterilised.

It may not be fair but it is how things are.

Even if a man uses condoms there are cases where the woman can become pregnant. And a man is held liable for a baby that he may not want if the woman keeps the baby, and he will also have to contribute financially if she decides this. But the bottom line is men have to accept this because thats just how it is, thats what you are saying.
I wonder if i went on the Ladies Lounge and told them to accept things cos thats just how it is what would happen?

shopaholic01

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Even if a man uses condoms there are cases where the woman can become pregnant. And a man is held liable for a baby that he may not want if the woman keeps the baby, and he will also have to contribute financially if she decides this. But the bottom line is men have to accept this because thats just how it is, thats what you are saying.
I wonder if i went on the Ladies Lounge and told them to accept things cos thats just how it is what would happen?

No need to go to the ladies lounge! Unfortunately it is true. I know women who have gotten pregnant because their partners believed they were taking the pill. Men in this situation have two choices
1. Pay maintenance and see the child.
2. Pay maintence and don't see the child. Spend the rest of your life being called a pr**k.

If a pregnancy is accidental the woman can decide whether or not to continue with the pregnancy. You never hear of women being dragged kicking and screaming into an abortion clinic.

Only way to avoid this is to use a condom.

Zulu

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Only way to avoid this is to use a condom.

If someone is devious to lie about taking the pill...

sharper

tripe man wrote: »

If you're a female and you're unattractive, you get an unlimited supply of guys fawning at your feet. If you're a male and you're unattractive, prepare to be treated like nothing less than a cockroach by women.

It's a bit difficult to parse out your meaning since attractiveness is a subjective concept. A woman that has men fawning at her feet for any reason can't be considered unattractive since obviously something is attracting them.

I will say that male physical preferences tend to be more widely distributed than female ones. If you take any particular attribute there are good odds that there are at least some men attracted to it e.g. men on average prefer a woman that's shorter than them but there are men that are attracted to taller women or are neutral about it. Women overwhelmingly prefer taller men even where they themselves are quite tall. A shorter male will have a very hard time whereas a taller female will experience problems satisfying her own preferences not necessarily those of other men.

(I'm average/slightly above average height, I'm not complaining about my own treatment just using it as an example).

However women are also more likely to consider a range of attributes which contribute to status. The classic examples are guys with wealth and power but more realistically guys that have obtained popularity or stature for whatever reason e.g. being in a band. Women that fall outside the societal norms for attractiveness of the era are more likely to have their competence judged by that and find it more difficult to achieve success, if they do achieve it then it doesn't contribute to attractiveness quite as much as for men.

(women that are "too attractive" are also likely to be overwhelmingly judged by this and not be taken seriously, seen only as attractive).

Shorter version: The grass always looks greener on the other side.

It's not really a rights issue but it does go back to how society views men and women, something from which many rights issues stem.

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

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

Just to say: one could also have community rating and still have men paying lower premiums on average: by having one common rate for men and one common rate for women. But, like you say, unlike with motor insurance, it didn't happen and men didn't benefit.

The Corinthian

miec wrote: »

It may not be fair but it is how things are.

That is how things currently are; there is no reason to simply accept it.

After all, that it is "how things are" did not deter those who fought to end Apartheid, or for civil rights in the US, or for female emancipation, despite this same logic being cited. If something is not 'fair' or is unjust you go and change it, not passively accept it as immutable.

jaffacakesyum

The Corinthian wrote: »

That is how things currently are; there is no reason to simply accept it.

After all, that it is "how things are" did not deter those who fought to end Apartheid, or for civil rights in the US, or for female emancipation, despite this same logic being cited. If something is not 'fair' or is unjust you go and change it, not passively accept it as immutable.

Agreed. Apologies as I haven't read the whole thread but I'm just dipping in to add my two cents.

I think there's several areas in which men are discriminated against, the main ones being fathers rights and the ridiculous law where a male teenager can get convicted for statuatory rape and the girl isn't, when it's all consensual.

Anyway, I think there is a lot of work that can be done for mens rights but I think the main thing restricting any advances is men themselves. I've ONLY ever seen mens rights being discussed on here - no men I know in real life are bothered. And I have several friends who would be active in other areas, be interested in politics and social advancement etc.

I see a lot of men on boards.ie complaining about inequality but why aren't they doing anything about it? Women had to fight for sooo long for their rights. They didn't just sit back and watch a man try and fight for their rights, yet the impression I get on here a lot of the time is 'oi, you women...you have more rights then men in x, y and z area. Fix it'

I think what would be great is if there were a joint movement for men and womens rights/equality. Does anyone know of any such movement? I know there is gender equality societies and the like, but admittedly, they mainly focus on feminist issues. I think the problem is though that a lot of men don't agree with some of the remaining feminist issues (such as unequal pay). But then again, maybe there are women who don't agree with more rights for fathers? It's a shame as I really think if both genders worked together, a lot could be done for society

iptba

One point that I don't think has been raised* is that men aren't given an automatic right to know if they are the biological parent of a child.

Big efforts are made in hospitals to make sure that babies aren't mixed up. If there has been a mix-up, blood tests will be run to check whether the child is a woman's or not. It is seen as terrible that a child could be given to the wrong mother.

However, the same can't be said about ensuring a man is a child's father. Labs and professionals here will not run a paternity test without the mother's permission, or a court order/similar.

Blood could even been used from the sample taken at birth to test for other conditions.

Many men would like to be sure it is their child. However, raising the issue risks ruining the relationship with woman. Also, because of the way the laws are, even if the relationship with the mother is not ongoing, a man can be reluctant to ask as this could jeopardise how much access she lets him have/similar. He can't simply ask for the test without her knowledge.

More testing for paternity at birth or in the early stages would also increase the chances that the child knows the correct biological parent. Knowledge of your parentage is useful for medical decisions, including risk factors for diseases. It can even be useful for decisions about having children e.g. with genetic counselling, also, people try to avoid having children with somebody who is closely related biologically to themselves, but if you don't know your correct parent, this might have.

It could also help the child as men might take more interest in a child if they were more certain it was their biological child, particularly if they are no longer with the mother.

* I wasn't sure what point was being made by one post

gizmo555

iptba wrote: »

Blood could even been used from the sample taken at birth to test for other conditions.

That would not be possible under data protection law, as the purpose for which the samples are collected is to test for certain congenital illnesses and nothing else.

There is some controversy at present because after discussion with the Data Protection Commissioner, the Minister for Health has ordered the destruction of over 1 million blood samples collected since 1984. The medical authorities had been keeping them indefinitely for "research", but what has clearly been established is that the samples concerned can only be used for bona fide health screening purposes of the individual babies concerned, and nothing else.

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Big efforts are made in hospitals to make sure that babies aren't mixed up. If there has been a mix-up, blood tests will be run to check whether the child is a woman's or not. It is seen as terrible that a child could be given to the wrong mother.

However, the same can't be said about ensuring a man is a child's father. Labs and professionals here will not run a paternity test without the mother's permission, or a court order/similar.

I had never thought about this, but you do make a fair point, given that however small the incidence of paternity fraud, it does exist and is almost certainly many times larger than the incidence of maternity mix-ups.

As you say, making such tests even voluntary or on request would cause conflict in the parental relationship and may even be rejected by the alleged father out of pride of not wanting to be seen as a cuckold. The most diplomatic means of dealing with this issue would be an automatic test shortly after birth, when the infant is being tested for other conditions.