In what ways are men discriminated against?

jaffacakesyum

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

How expensive would this be though? I know it's a simple test but these things cost money. Would it be economical to test every single child that's born in Ireland for the sake of a man's pride because he doesn't want to ruin the relationship by asking for the test?

Just a thought.

Sauve

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

How expensive would this be though? I know it's a simple test but these things cost money. Would it be economical to test every single child that's born in Ireland for the sake of a man's pride because he doesn't want to ruin the relationship by asking for the test?

Just a thought.

In fairness though, if a man feels the need to ask for a paternity test in the first place, that would indicate to me that the relationship is already ruined.

Galvasean

iptba wrote: »

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.

Tell me about it. An old friend of mine had his life destroyed after an ex partner of his whom he had a child with told him the child wasn't his and refused to allow him to get a test done. The courts were unsympathetic to his cause and essentially took the mother's word for it. To this day he has no idea if teh child is his or not.

The Corinthian

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

How expensive would this be though? I know it's a simple test but these things cost money. Would it be economical to test every single child that's born in Ireland for the sake of a man's pride because he doesn't want to ruin the relationship by asking for the test?

If standard, I would imagine the unit cost would decline substantially. The reality is that while figures are difficult to come by, anything between 2% - 10% of supposed paternities turn out to be false. We already do standard tests for things that have far lower incident rates and frankly I think this is something that is important enough to merit the same.

Sauve wrote: »

In fairness though, if a man feels the need to ask for a paternity test in the first place, that would indicate to me that the relationship is already ruined.

We're not suggesting that the man would need to request it, quite the opposite; that it becomes a standard test, just as many other tests are. In reality it is often the very men who do not ask are the ones who end up being the father to another man's child.

They may not ask because they have no idea, or may object out of pride to even the suggestion that they have been cuckolded, or as has been suggested out of fear of the reaction from the mother. Making this a standard test would eliminate these issues while dealing with those cases that return negative paternity results.

The Corinthian

Galvasean wrote: »

Tell me about it. An old friend of mine had his life destroyed after an ex partner of his whom he had a child with told him the child wasn't his and refused to allow him to get a test done. The courts were unsympathetic to his cause and essentially took the mother's word for it. To this day he has no idea if teh child is his or not.

That seems bizarre. If paternity is disputed and the mother refuses permission for a DNA test, courts will typically conclude that she is looking to hide the truth and rule in favour of the man. It seems insane that a court would rule in favour of the mother in such a scenario and certainly I would imagine that a higher court would almost certainly overturn such a judgement.

iptba

gizmo555 wrote: »

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.

That may be the case on past samples. I don't know why it couldn't change on further samples, if necessary with a law being passed enabling it.

iptba

By the way, I know a case (mother is daughter of a family friend although this was more in the past*) where she said a certain man, who she was no longer seeing by the time of the birth, was the father. He paid his way for years and although wasn't interested in the boy initially, after a few years started to take an interest in him. However, after a few more years, he became suspicious that the boy wasn't his at all. A paternity test was arranged and it turned out he wasn't the father. I think the man has cut off contact with boy now.

* no particular fight or anything

Galvasean

The Corinthian wrote: »

That seems bizarre. If paternity is disputed and the mother refuses permission for a DNA test, courts will typically conclude that she is looking to hide the truth and rule in favour of the man. It seems insane that a court would rule in favour of the mother in such a scenario and certainly I would imagine that a higher court would almost certainly overturn such a judgement.

That's what I was thinking and said to him. Apparently if your name is not on the birth cert you aren't entitled to a paternity test or some weird loophole like that. He refused to take it further for whatever reason. I reckon deep down he feared the truth of the matter. He has actually left the country since the whole thing. Nobody has heard from him in years.

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Would it be economical to test every single child that's born in Ireland for the sake of a man's pride because he doesn't want to ruin the relationship by asking for the test?

You are using the word "pride" and "ruin the relationship" side-by-side so I'm unclear what you're saying?

Are you saying the only reason to run the test is for his pride? I reject this - I gave reasons why it is a useful test for the child to have done too (for their medical history, for knowledge of who are their blood relatives and hence may not be suitable in a partner, etc.).

If the relationship is ruined because the man asks, it will be because the woman is annoyed by the request.

ETA: I see now that The Corinthian has said some men may not ask because of pride because of fear that they have been cuckolded; however that's not the only reason men don't ask, and I see "ruin the relationship" as a separate to "pride" considerations.

iptba

I remember hearing of a study that maternal grandparents take more interest in a child than paternal grandparents. The reason suggested was because the maternal grandparents were more sure the child was related to them.

I actually can't remember whether this was a study of humans or animals (oops!). (Maybe there have been studies on both which is why I am thinking of both groups??)

The Corinthian

Galvasean wrote: »

That's what I was thinking and said to him. Apparently if your name is not on the birth cert you aren't entitled to a paternity test or some weird loophole like that. He refused to take it further for whatever reason. I reckon deep down he feared the truth of the matter. He has actually left the country since the whole thing. Nobody has heard from him in years.

If you're not a guardian then you aren't entitled to a paternity test; the birth cert legally means nothing in Ireland, it's not even legal proof of paternity, let alone confer rights upon the father.

iptba wrote: »

ETA: I see now that The Corinthian has said some men may not ask because of pride because of fear that they have been cuckolded; however that's not the only reason men don't ask, and I see "ruin the relationship" as a separate to "pride" considerations.

There are plenty of reasons that men might not ask and the most obvious one is that they trust their partner/wife and are naturally offended at the potential accusation or it might never even occur to them.

Nonetheless paternity fraud does occur and certainly more often than many medical conditions that are routinely tested for in hospitals. And more often than not, it occurs to those very men who would never think to ask for a test.

iptba wrote: »

I remember hearing of a study that maternal grandparents take more interest in a child than paternal grandparents. The reason suggested was because the maternal grandparents were more sure the child was related to them.

Orthodox Judaism uses matrilineality to define whether someone is Jewish for this reason.

LegacyUser

I find discrimination a funny topic(apart from family law etc). Lawfully I find as a man there is very little I am not allowed do, therefore if I wanted to do something I could. The same goes for women. I had this talk with a female friend of mine and she agreed.

It looks like whenever people hit a barrier in what they want to do or feel they are being held back in any way they think they are being discriminated against. It's an easy out really. It's uncommon for men to be child minders, however if you are good enough you can do so.

As for things like "womens hour" in the gym, that just makes it sound like the rest of the day the gym is just for men! I understand women only classes etc but limiting the whole gym to women for an hour seems a bit o.t.t. However I assume you were told this when you activated your membership and therefore its not discrimination against men and just a service that the gym provides to its members, much like pool aerobics for the elderly or childrens swimming lessons.

Then there are the other exceptions such as Yorkies "not for girls" or Ladies day at the races. Obviously both do not limit the consumption or attendance to one gender so they cannot be discriminating against a gender, they are just marketing tactics.

As I said at the start however family law is different. Men should have similar rights to women when it comes to family law, with the exception really of abortion (you can't force someone to carry a child for 9 months if they dont want to). When it comes down to who gets custody of a child really it should be the better parent.

A paternity test when a child is born is an interesting point. Personally I know of a person who requested a paternity test from a woman he had a one night stand with, it returned positive for it being his child however the woman than used that against him in court and blocked all visitation rights. So he is left to pay child maintenance yet does not get to see the child.

gizmo555

iptba wrote: »

That may be the case on past samples. I don't know why it couldn't change on further samples, if necessary with a law being passed enabling it.

It was established in a 2001 Supreme Court case that the heel prick test cannot be done without parental consent. If there was a concern on the part of some mothers that the test sample might be used against their wishes for paternity tests, it would create a risk that some infants would not be tested for very serious conditions.

issem

There are many specific ways in which men are discriminated against, but overall it's just a general part of our attitude as a culture. When you're a man you are generally treated like a lower form of life than women in every facet of life.

However I would say the the top 20% percent of men in terms of status have it better than most women, but 80% of women have it better than the remaining 80% of men. Women always tend to only look at that top 20% of men when evaluating how things are, that's why we get blatantly untrue cultural notions like "guys never call" when in reality most guys are starved of affection and women have a plectra of nice guys to choose from at any given time.

BarackPyjama

issem wrote: »

It's because Western society has been hyper-sexualized by a scientific formula. Western males are being constantly over-stimulated by subliminal sexual imagery which makes them crave sex like a drug. The quality of the intercourse or who it's with in what circumstances is all irrelevant. They're going to do whatever it takes to get the 'hit' they've been programmed to think they need. Sadly it's gotten to such an extreme point that some are even willing to forcefully penetrate an unwilling female.

There's another example :rolleyes: From the Ladies Lounge. Didn't want to reply there as I'd most likely be banned.

It's not just anonymous women on forums either. This exercise in vile misandry from The Sunday Indo really took my breath away.

Dolbert

I'm fairly certain that issem is not only male, but a serial re-reg at that.

iptba

I don't know the current rules with regard to private pensions. However, with public sector jobs and the state pension, men don't get a increased pension because on average they will live less. Alternatively, if one was to apply the car insurance model, there would be a difference in the contributions made, with men having to paying less in.

issem

BarackPyjama wrote: »

There's another example :rolleyes: From the Ladies Lounge. Didn't want to reply there as I'd most likely be banned.

It's not just anonymous women on forums either. This exercise in vile misandry from The Sunday Indo really took my breath away.

Wait a minute, are you accusing ME of being a misandrist?? Let me tell you something son, I've been fighting the hopeless battle on misandry from before you were even alive to come on here and make lewd accusations as if you're a female who's just woken up the morning after drunkenly having sex with a beta male the night before.

The Corinthian

issem wrote: »

Wait a minute, are you accusing ME of being a misandrist??

With respects, the post cited is pretty misandrist - unless you were intentionally being sarcastic or satirical when you wrote it.

And I'm someone who is certainly no spring chicken.

issem

The Corinthian wrote: »

With respects, the post cited is pretty misandrist - unless you were intentionally being sarcastic or satirical when you wrote it.

And I'm someone who is certainly no spring chicken.

My post said that Western males as a whole have been over-sexualized and that is the real cause of rape. I was trying to dispel the ridiculous feminist myth that "rape is about power, not sex".

The Corinthian

issem wrote: »

My post said that Western males as a whole have been over-sexualized and that is the real cause of rape. I was trying to dispel the ridiculous feminist myth that "rape is about power, not sex".

Yet in the process you managed to paint men as mindless sexual junkies who will stick their dicks in anything that moves, and such disparaging stereotypes are misandrist.

Dudess

"When you're a man you're treated as a lower form of life in every facet" - sweet Jesus, it just gets crazier and crazier.

Misandry does exist but stuff like the above undermines actual experiences of it...

BarackPyjama

issem wrote: »

Wait a minute, are you accusing ME of being a misandrist?? Let me tell you something son, I've been fighting the hopeless battle on misandry from before you were even alive to come on here and make lewd accusations as if you're a female who's just woken up the morning after drunkenly having sex with a beta male the night before.

Look, read over your post again, the one that I quoted. If that's not misandry, I really don't know what is.

issem

BarackPyjama wrote: »

Look, read over your post again, the one that I quoted. If that's not misandry, I really don't know what is.

My post basically stated two facts:

1) Men in this country have become pussy-beggars of the highest order.

2) As a derivative of this, SOME men resort to rape to have their newly (jewly in fact ) needs met.

I stand by both statements as they are true.

BarackPyjama

issem wrote: »

My post basically stated two facts:

1) Men in this country have become pussy-beggars of the highest order.

2) As a derivative of this, SOME men resort to rape to have their newly (jewly in fact ) needs met.

I stand by both statements as they are true.

You sicken me.

issem

Dudess wrote: »

"When you're a man you're treated as a lower form of life in every facet" - sweet Jesus, it just gets crazier and crazier.

Misandry does exist but stuff like the above undermines actual experiences of it...

It is getting crazier and crazier, by design. That's why the craziness needs to stop NOW before it's too late and we are living in a total tyrannic dictatorship. Misandry IS as bad in this country as that quote stated, people have just been conditioned not to notice it.

issem

BarackPyjama wrote: »

You sicken me.

Your ignorance sickens me. It's time for shemales like you to wake up and take back your balls.

iptba

While I'm not an expert on feminism, different feminists can complain about different things, and also can analyse society in different ways. I'm not sure if it's the best example, but I recall some feminists complaining about the institution of marriage. It seems quite possible people can have different complaints about society in terms of disadvantages or discrimination they see men as having.

Dudess

issem wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

"When you're a man you're treated as a lower form of life in every facet" - sweet Jesus, it just gets crazier and crazier.

Misandry does exist but stuff like the above undermines actual experiences of it...

It is getting crazier and crazier, by design. That's why the craziness needs to stop NOW before it's too late and we are living in a total tyrannic dictatorship. Misandry IS as bad in this country as that quote stated, people have just been conditioned not to notice it.

No, what you're saying gets crazier and crazier. And to call BarackPyjama a shemale? Lol. You don't even know what you're arguing about...

Otis Driftwood

issem is now banned,he is clearly a re-reg troll so please ignore their posts.

Cheers.

miec

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.

So what would you propose is the best way around this problem?

For instance if a woman gets pregnant by accident and she does not want to keep the baby how can a man force her to keep the baby? Unless he is happy to raise the child on his own and the woman pay him support / maintenance or be the main breadwinner.

I raise this because after I had my son I did not want any more children and took precautions to ensure I did not get pregnant but as other posters have said what if pregnancy occurs despite best attempts and if I found myself in that position. I know I could not bear to be forced to have a child I didn't want unless it was desired by both parties or the man was willing to raise the child himself.

In the case of where a woman wants a baby but her husband / boyfriend does not and she gets secretly pregnant then that man is forced into fatherhood. It is completely wrong of the woman to do that but how do men get around that problem. That is why I said a man would need to use a condom at all times or find a woman who really, really doesn't want kids because she will ensure she won't get pregnant.

py2006

Getting back on topic, where men are discriminated against?

Apart from the obvious (family law, statutory rape etc) I find that men are constantly labelled negatively by women, the media etc.

• Sexism
• Objectification
• Sexual harassment
• inappropriate comments
• double standards

Men are persistently accused of, labeled with the above. Yet in my opinion and experience, women can be equally as guilty and in some cases more so of the above.

Yet, god forbid, if we question this or raise this in debate we are accused of being misogynistic.

BarackPyjama

py2006 wrote: »

Getting back on topic, where men are discriminated against?

Apart from the obvious (family law, statutory rape etc) I find that men are constantly labelled negatively by women, the media etc.

• Sexism
• Objectification
• Sexual harassment
• inappropriate comments
• double standards

Men are persistently accused of, labeled with the above. Yet in my opinion and experience, women can be equally as guilty and in some cases more so of the above.

Yet, god forbid, if we question this or raise this in debate we are accused of being misogynistic.

As I type this, the words 'misandrist' and 'misandry' both come up as errors on my browser's in-built spell checker. Seems that nobody wants us to even use these words, despite how pervasive the hatred of men is and how the words 'misogynist' and 'misogyny' are bandied around on a daily basis.

Time we started investigating proper egalitarianism before the lunatics take over the asylum methinks.

The Corinthian

miec wrote: »

So what would you propose is the best way around this problem?

That's another discussion. This thread is about identifying discrimination against men, not about finding solutions for each kind of discrimination - if it were it would never end.

I do not accept the 'condom' argument, neither do I accept the 'just the way things are' argument on this or any other example of such discrimination. While they may represent current necessity due to an unjust system, that is not to say that they should be accepted as a permanent necessity.

However, as I said, how we stop it being a permanent necessity is another discussion for another thread (and if you search the forum, quite a few threads in the past).

iptba

Self-explanatory letter in Monday's Irish Times from a man

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0416/1224314762032.html

Discrimination in caring professions?

Sir, – I am a qualified social care worker, but currently unemployed. I have recently furthered my education through HSE mandatory courses that have cost me €420. In my last employment, I availed of a sign language course.

Along with my studies, I have experience in working in the area of intellectual disabilities and special needs – from mild to moderate to severe and with children, teenagers and adults.

I am registered with two recruitment agencies specialising in social care. On April 5th, I was contacted by one of these recruitment agencies with the offer of up to 16 hours of work in Co Waterford, working with a service user with autism. The agent asked when was I available to start. I told him, as I was not working, I could start whenever it suited the service user. He said he would contact me again with more detail.

Within 30 minutes, I received a text message from the agency to say that the job was no longer mine as they wanted a female in the position. It was also suggested in this text message, that a position better suited to me would be found in the future.

I have worked with both male and female service users of all ages. I have sat in classrooms and attended courses with both men and women. As have doctors, teachers, sport coaches, nurses, and so on.

So why, in Ireland in 2012, does the fact that I am male prevent me from obtaining a position to which I am very qualified?

Such prejudice in an area where there should be none is a disservice to the caring professions and all of those involved. Due to gender discrimination, is it time that I, a devoted social care worker, leave the field and embark on a more so-called “gender appropriate” career? – Yours, etc,

The Corinthian

That there is now a glass ceiling for men in certain professions is something that has been apparent for a while, with some professions practically barring entry to men - in primary school education or earlier it is very difficult for men to now even get a job.

Non-carer professions that appear to have this issue, to one degree or other, include public relations and, particularly, HR.

Dolbert

iptba wrote: »

Self-explanatory letter in Monday's Irish Times from a man

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2012/0416/1224314762032.html

That's disgraceful. He should take them to court, surely that's illegal...

gizmo555

The Corinthian wrote: »

That there is now a glass ceiling for men in certain professions is something that has been apparent for a while, with some professions practically barring entry to men - in primary school education or earlier it is very difficult for men to now even get a job.

Whatever about pre-school, the issue with primary school teaching is that men aren't applying for places in the teacher training colleges. Over 90% of the intake into the colleges in recent years is female.

py2006

I think the primary school issue has a lot to do with the percentage of males not doing higher level Irish at Leaving Cert. There are also some men who would be extremely hesitant to work with children for fear of false accusations etc. Then of course you have the, "that's a womans job" attitude.

gizmo555

py2006 wrote: »

I think the primary school issue has a lot to do with the percentage of males not doing higher level Irish at Leaving Cert.

If they wanted to do teacher training, they'd take the subjects required - it can hardly be described as discrimination if they don't.

py2006

gizmo555 wrote: »

If they wanted to do teacher training, they'd take the subjects required - it can hardly be described as discrimination if they don't.

Kinda the point I was making!

Roadtrippin

I am not sure if we are only speaking about discrimination in the courts, jobs etc.
But discrimination starts in other places, like the home, school, etc. as well.

In society, I reckon men are often discriminated by other men... I'll explain what I mean by that.
For example, who are the ones that make fun of a guy when he chooses to become a male nurse? Mostly men...
Who makes fun of a guy when he wants to become a florist, hairdresser etc.? Mostly men and maybe some women that don't know any better.

When it comes to the job a guy chooses to do, if it is in any way a female-dominated job, a lot of men will make fun of it... Why is that? It is idiotic really. It goes as far as guys saying a guy that wants to become a hairdresser is gay. First of all, so what if he is. And if he isn't, why are men making it harder for him?
You'd think in this day and age everyone should be able to choose whatever profession they feel is right for them. None of this masculinity BS in the work place...

Here is an interesting article I came across a while ago - nothing to do with discrimination but more so masculinity etc.

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2010/08/the-lost-art-of-masculinity/

The Corinthian

gizmo555 wrote: »

If they wanted to do teacher training, they'd take the subjects required - it can hardly be described as discrimination if they don't.

The requirement for Irish is unlikely to explain the effective halving of male primary school teachers alone. Indeed, if it did, it would likely tie into the declining academic levels amongst boys.

Personally, the fear of false accusation and the prevailing prejudice against men as somehow all being closet child molesters is probably a larger part of it.

I would also note that there are often practical reasons for discrimination against women in employment, most notably that they must divide their time between child care and career - I do not hear the argument that it can hardly be described as discrimination if they choose the former over the latter though. Instead I hear calls for quotas.

Roadtrippin wrote: »

In society, I reckon men are often discriminated by other men...

Much of the prejudices that lead to such discrimination are societal, so it should not be a surprise that both men and women will discriminate. As was discussed earlier, women are discriminated against when going for many jobs if they are in the child baring 'danger zone' - in reality, as HR is generally dominated by women, it would follow that much of this discrimination against women is carried out by other women. The same goes for men discriminating against men.

A good example is the area of homemaking. Male homemakers are derided as parasitic, weak, mentally unfit, etc by both men and women. Many men view such men with disdain and women - well, ask a few single women if they had to choose between her future husband being a homemaker and she the provider or the other way around and see what your results are.

Roadtrippin

The Corinthian wrote: »

Much of the prejudices that lead to such discrimination are societal, so it should not be a surprise that both men and women will discriminate. As was discussed earlier, women are discriminated against when going for many jobs if they are in the child baring 'danger zone' - in reality, as HR is generally dominated by women, it would follow that much of this discrimination against women is carried out by other women. The same goes for men discriminating against men.

A good example is the area of homemaking. Male homemakers are derided as parasitic, weak, mentally unfit, etc by both men and women. Many men view such men with disdain and women - well, ask a few single women if they had to choose between her future husband being a homemaker and she the provider or the other way around and see what your results are.

Totally agree with you. It boggles the mind how people (men and women) can be so narrow-minded when it comes to men at home being the homemakers.
I am a girl and I would never see that as a bad thing. If a guy is willing to step up and do the homemaking part, what's there to complain about as a woman? I wouldn't see a guy in a different light if he did that. In fact, I would think highly of him since he is obviously a good dad and husband.
If a women can only respect a man when he's the one with the bigger wage and he's the one bringing home the bacon, that's discriminatory and very very ignorant.
Times have changed - both sides need to start accepting that and finding new ways of working and living together.

Regarding the discrimination towards women in the "danger zone", i.e. childbearing age... I find that outrageous and it really should not happen, particularly when, like you pointed out, the majority of HR personnel is women. How is it that to this day the fact that women have babies still has not led to employers (especially the bigger companies that can afford it) making provisions for it? Daycare available at or near the workplace to name one thing, flexitime etc. They have it in the States and in Germany, for example, why not here?
I'd say it'll be another decade or century before that'll happen.

The Corinthian

Roadtrippin wrote: »

Times have changed - both sides need to start accepting that and finding new ways of working and living together.

I know, but these things are difficult to shake for any of us. As I suggested, ask a woman (or man) that if you had to choose for one partner to be a stay at home and the other provide, you'll still overwhelmingly get both men and women preferring the traditional set-up.

Regarding the discrimination towards women in the "danger zone", i.e. childbearing age... I find that outrageous and it really should not happen, particularly when, like you pointed out, the majority of HR personnel is women. How is it that to this day the fact that women have babies still has not led to employers (especially the bigger companies that can afford it) making provisions for it? Daycare available at or near the workplace to name one thing, flexitime etc. They have it in the States and in Germany, for example, why not here?
I'd say it'll be another decade or century before that'll happen.

That may reduce gender based discrimination but it won't eliminate it because it will still be female employees that will be seen as the child carers and thus will not be able to put in 100% into the job.

The only way to even out the playing field is to change attitudes so that men are equally (or at least significantly) seen to take on that role. And as long as society, through imbalanced parental rights law and overwhelmingly skewed custody statistics, tells us it's a woman's job, it will de facto remain so.

Roadtrippin

The Corinthian wrote: »

The only way to even out the playing field is to change attitudes so that men are equally (or at least significantly) seen to take on that role. And as long as society, through imbalanced parental rights law and overwhelmingly skewed custody statistics, tells us it's a woman's job, it will de facto remain so.

I'd say we all agree that they need to work on those imbalanced parental rights in Ireland. They are dated and do in no way reflect current realities.
It is unacceptable that men need to invest loads of money in custody battles just so they can see their child. Especially, if they couple wasn't married it is a lengthy and expensive path to justice...

Another idea I'd like to add about parents working and splitting the family's workload equally:
As far as I know, in Germany and some Scandinavian countries, for example, men can take paternity leave just as much as women can go on maternity leave. It has already changed the way society views stay-at-home dads.

So maybe it's time the legal system changed something so people realise that we are in the 21st century where men and women should have equal rights, particularly in terms of parenting.

Maguined

Roadtrippin wrote: »

As far as I know, in Germany and some Scandinavian countries, for example, men can take paternity leave just as much as women can go on maternity leave. It has already changed the way society views stay-at-home dads.

The question is though who pays for this leave? I doubt many struggling business would like the idea of now having to pay for paternal leave and I doubt many struggling tax payers would like to pay for it either.

The Corinthian

Roadtrippin wrote: »

As far as I know, in Germany and some Scandinavian countries, for example, men can take paternity leave just as much as women can go on maternity leave. It has already changed the way society views stay-at-home dads.

Yes, but paternity leave on it's own will not have a high take up. Paternity leave to care for a child that you have the same rights to as a hired babysitter is not going to encourage much of a paradigm shift. It might get the likes of Ivana Bacik a few votes though.

Maguined wrote: »

The question is though who pays for this leave? I doubt many struggling business would like the idea of now having to pay for paternal leave and I doubt many struggling tax payers would like to pay for it either.

Most models that include paternity leave are based upon shared parental leave dates where either parent can take them.

Maguined

The Corinthian wrote: »

Most models that include paternity leave are based upon shared parental leave dates where either parent can take them.

Yes but even in countries that have generous parental leave rights that can be shared between both mother and father there is till the significant difference in whether the state or employer pays this leave and what percentage.

I agree that parental leave will have to be shared between both parents in order to get past "women = primary carer" we have however how much leave and consequently how much extra tax I will be forced to pay for other people to look after their own children concerns me greatly. I certainly would not want the Swedish model as I think it is too expensive on the tax payer.

Zulu

Roadtrippin wrote: »

As far as I know, in Germany and some Scandinavian countries, for example, men can take paternity leave just as much as women can go on maternity leave. It has already changed the way society views stay-at-home dads.

In Sweden parental leave is to be divvied up as the couple see fit, however, they needed to introduce a compulsory minimum amount to be taken by the father in order to make it successful.