Mens Rights Thread

PucaMama

Surely I can't be the only one to think withholding sex and affection in a relationship can be abusive and used to manipulate your partner?

py2006

PucaMama wrote: »

Surely I can't be the only one to think withholding sex and affection in a relationship can be abusive and used to manipulate your partner?

In that case 95% of married men are being abused...

PucaMama

py2006 wrote: »

In that case 95% of married men are being abused...

Any facts to prove that major assumption??

Pawwed Rig

PucaMama wrote: »

Surely I can't be the only one to think withholding sex and affection in a relationship can be abusive and used to manipulate your partner?

Of course it can and it is used in relationships all the time as a form of control. But it is a stretch to describe it as sexual violence especially when you consider that one of the measure of 'rape' is seen as a woman consenting to sex even though she is not it the mood.
I can't believe we are even debating whether this is sexual violence

Henry9

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Of course it can and it is used in relationships all the time as a form of control. But it is a stretch to describe it as sexual violence especially when you consider that one of the measure of 'rape' is seen as a woman consenting to sex even though she is not it the mood.
I can't believe we are even debating whether this is sexual violence

I'm going to go waaaaaaayyyyyyy out on a limb here and wager that this definition will only apply when it can be thrown by a woman at a man.

The stupidity of academic feminisim is something I find mind boggling.

The fact that they are ivory tower academics existing in their own echo chamber, trying to out do each other in their radicalism I get.

That they try to increase their own status and power by appointing themselves as the though police to impose their skewed view of the world, I get that too.

I don't understand though why they would do such a disservice to genuine victims of genuine abuse by widening the definition so much it becomes meaningless. Just to juke their own bullsh1t statistics.

Seriously?

Happened upon this article this morning, it's got an interesting premise.
Basically since middleclass+ females are both so privileged and infantilised (as counter-intuitive as it seems) by feminism these days; they no longer capable of recognising the existance of true danger.

http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

I’m not in full agreement with it, but it does show awareness of how feminism poisons other disciplines such as psychology to make them fit into its dogma.

Playboy

I can relate to a lot of what the author says in that article. I was thinking about this myself the other day. People are really living in a bubble in the West. We have become so detached from the barbarity that exists in the rest of the world that we spend our time obsessing over definitions and arguing until we pull our hair out with people who think that pinching someone's bottom is assault and should come with a prison sentence. Just report the guy to the bouncer and 9/10 times he will get thrown out on his ear. No need to write 20 columns in the guardian about your assault and the oppression of women because of one drunk idiot.

The world is full of assholes, idiots, ill, delusional, psychotic, aggressive, and dysfunctional individuals. It will likely always be this way and there will likely always be people doing things that you don't like, invading your space, making you feel less than a 100% safe etc etc.

The answer isn't wasting energy locking up people over trivial matters. We need to focus our attention on making sure the real criminals who are a real danger to peoples safety are prosecuted, convicted and prevented from hurting people again in the future.

We seem to be diluting serious crimes such as rape and assault by confusing them with normal human behaviors and interactions. Do we really want to live in a world where literally everything can interpreted as some kind of abuse or assault.... withholding sex!!???? It is ridiculous in the extreme and some people need to get a grip and see what is going on in the rest of the world. If you want to be a feminist and want to do some good for women then help real victims of abuse in this country or focus your efforts on countries like India and Saudi Arabia where women face real discrimination every day. Stop giving drama queens airtime and attention when they sleep with someone willingly and then cry rape or get their bottom pinched in a nightclub and wants to get the guy locked up.

It isn't doing anyone any favors by filling up newspaper columns with this kind of claptrap

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/01/maroon-5-animals-video-woman-adam-levine

Henry9

Playboy wrote: »

We seem to be diluting serious crimes such as rape and assault by confusing them with normal human behaviors and interactions. Do we really want to live in a world where literally everything can interpreted as some kind of abuse or assault.... withholding sex!!???? It is ridiculous in the extreme and some people need to get a grip and see what is going on in the rest of the world. If you want to be a feminist and want to do some good for women then help real victims of abuse in this country or focus your efforts on countries like India and Saudi Arabia where women face real discrimination every day. Stop giving drama queens airtime and attention when they sleep with someone willingly and then cry rape or get their bottom pinched in a nightclub and wants to get the guy locked up.

It isn't doing anyone any favors by filling up newspaper columns with this kind of claptrap

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/01/maroon-5-animals-video-woman-adam-levine

That's nothing. The appeal of perpetual victimhood is too strong for some people.
A white woman with a big arse is 'cultural appropriation':
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/23/why-black-bum-only-good-white-skin-cultural-appropriation

You see it on boards all the time, the same bunch of people who seem to live with a hair trigger ability to take offense.

paddy1990

Seriously? wrote: »

Happened upon this article this morning, it's got an interesting premise.
Basically since middleclass+ females are both so privileged and infantilised (as counter-intuitive as it seems) by feminism these days; they no longer capable of recognising the existance of true danger.

http://time.com/3444749/camille-paglia-the-modern-campus-cannot-comprehend-evil/

I’m not in full agreement with it, but it does show awareness of how feminism poisons other disciplines such as psychology to make them fit into its dogma.

Good post and article.

It's quite something to read how a lot of women have taken feminism a bit too far. Interestingly there are a lot of parallels between the west and the roman empire and it could be argued that feminism played a huge role in the fall of the roman empire. Here is an interesting article I found. Can't really disagree with it as it's very historically accurate.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Equality/comments/cp35h/feminism_of_the_future_relies_on_men_nytimescom/c0u6hw8

Pawwed Rig

This piece annoyed me this morning

Working parents and women have been the hardest hit by consecutive harsh budgets and austerity.
According to new research from the Economic and Social Research Institute, households where both parents work have seen the biggest squeeze, with a 13% drop in disposable income since the recession took hold.
Women have fared worse - suffering a 15% drop - due partly to a 25% cut to child benefit over the five year period from 2009 to 2013, which is usually received by mothers.

Why would child benefit be considered the womans income unless she is a single parent? I applied for our child benefit and the dept would not put my name on any correspondence relating to it. It was all addressed to my wife. With us it is paid into a joint account so it is household income rather than hers or mine. Including this makes the headline a nonsense. It may be the case that women fared worse but give us the real data at least

marienbad

paddy1990 wrote: »

Good post and article.

It's quite something to read how a lot of women have taken feminism a bit too far. Interestingly there are a lot of parallels between the west and the roman empire and it could be argued that feminism played a huge role in the fall of the roman empire. Here is an interesting article I found. Can't really disagree with it as it's very historically accurate.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Equality/comments/cp35h/feminism_of_the_future_relies_on_men_nytimescom/c0u6hw8

Great theory, pity it doesn't fit the facts - the Empire moved east with Constantine and didn't actually fall until 1453.

paddy1990

marienbad wrote: »

Great theory, pity it doesn't fit the facts - the Empire moved east with Constantine and didn't actually fall until 1453.

Pick up a history book.

marienbad

paddy1990 wrote: »

Pick up a history book.

Try taking your own advice first .

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - Stop bickering please

iptba

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This piece annoyed me this morning

Working parents and women have been the hardest hit by consecutive harsh budgets and austerity.

According to new research from the Economic and Social Research Institute, households where both parents work have seen the biggest squeeze, with a 13% drop in disposable income since the recession took hold.
Women have fared worse - suffering a 15% drop - due partly to a 25% cut to child benefit over the five year period from 2009 to 2013, which is usually received by mothers.

Why would child benefit be considered the womans income unless she is a single parent? I applied for our child benefit and the dept would not put my name on any correspondence relating to it. It was all addressed to my wife. With us it is paid into a joint account so it is household income rather than hers or mine. Including this makes the headline a nonsense. It may be the case that women fared worse but give us the real data at least

These so-called gender equality reports rarely if ever say men came off worse/women came off better.

There are probably other ways to look at this. For example, people over 65 were hit less than people who are under 65. This, one could say, benefits women more as they make up a greater proportion of people over 65.

Austerity hit capital spending which disproportionately affected men as more men are involved in construction and the like - I don't think that has been considered.

Also, if women were hit more as they are more in the public sector, they then benefited a lot from the big increases in pay (and consequently pensions) in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Their pensions might have been affected less on average following the crash.

Just some random thoughts that come to mind - I haven't thought them through fully. But in general I am sceptical of the fairness of 'gender proofing’ of budget policy as is mentioned should happen: http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/married-or-co-habiting-women-hit-harder-by-austerity-1.1950132?utm_medium=email&utm_source=morning-digest&utm_campaign=digests. When I have looked in to it in the past, it didn't seem to be truly gender neutral and seemed to be driven by a desire to get the best deal for women.

Henry9

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

This piece annoyed me this morning

Why would child benefit be considered the womans income unless she is a single parent? I applied for our child benefit and the dept would not put my name on any correspondence relating to it. It was all addressed to my wife. With us it is paid into a joint account so it is household income rather than hers or mine. Including this makes the headline a nonsense. It may be the case that women fared worse but give us the real data at least

Just the usual mendacious feminist nonsense:

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/married-or-co-habiting-women-hit-harder-by-austerity-1.1950132

assessed the impact of tax, welfare and public sector pay changes on men and women between 2009 and 2013...

This is because a higher proportion of women work in the public sector and because they are more likely to be receiving benefits such as the carer’s allowance.

The study did not assess how the income differentials affected living standards, as this is dependent on the degree to which couples pool their incomes.

Nor did it take into account other recessionary phenomena, which the Government had no direct control over, such as job losses and private sector pay cuts.

So they mean to say, cuts in benefits, which are mostly received by women, negatively impact women?

Pay cuts in the public sector, dominated by women, mostly affect women?
How about increasing the proportion of men in the public sector? Problem solved.

A key driver of the differential was the reduction in child benefit, usually received by mothers, which was cut by 25 per cent during the five-year period.

How about not paying the child benefit exclusively to mothers then? Problem solved.

So the bottom line is, if you exclude the factors which predominantly affect men, then 'women are hit hardest by austerity'.

I wonder what purpose could be served by publishing such obvious nonsense.

Ms Orlagh O’Farrell, acting chairperson of the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission said: “To promote equality in practice between men and women we need to challenge assumptions of gender neutrality in public policy. This report confirms the need for the systematic ‘gender proofing’ of budget policy.”

Oh I see, it's so the usual mouthpieces can bang on at length about 'women being hardest hit'.

So who is responsible for this transparent propaganda?

The study, carried out by the Economic and Social Research Institute on behalf of the Equality Authority

Oh, big surprise.

Pawwed Rig

The paygap

The Gender Pay Gap measures the relative difference in the average gross hourly earnings of men and women as a whole.
The latest figures from the EU Commission show that the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 13.9% - in other words women in Ireland are paid almost 14% less than men. The Gender Pay Gap exists even though women do better at school and university than men.
In the Irish context, what is perhaps most disturbing is the high cost of motherhood. Figures from the OECD show that in Ireland the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child – a jump of 31 percentage points. The gender pay gap exists across the sectors.
For the bottom 10% of earners, the Gender Pay Gap in Ireland is 4% but this rises to 24.6% for the top 10% of income earners, suggesting the continued presence of a glass ceiling and indirect discrimination.
NWCI has highlighted the Gender Pay Gap together with SIPTU on Gender Pay Day in February, a day which aims to highlight the amount of additional days a woman has to work so that her pay would be equal to a man’s pay.

Am I reading this right in that it is saying that women who don't have kids earn 17% more than men?

source http://www.nwci.ie/?/discover/what_we_do/womens_economic_independence/women_and_employment/gender_pay_gap/

Amirani

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

The paygap



Am I reading this right in that it is saying that women who don't have kids earn 17% more than men?

source http://www.nwci.ie/?/discover/what_we_do/womens_economic_independence/women_and_employment/gender_pay_gap/

That's how I read it. Wtf?

Pawwed Rig

Diego Simeone wrote: »

That's how I read it. Wtf?

Where is the uproar? :pac:

Seriously?

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Where is the uproar? :pac:

Clearly something needs to be done to help women with kids.

DoYouEvenLift

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Where is the uproar? :pac:

Muhhh PaTriArChYyyyyYy!!!!1!1!!1

Wibbs

Makes perfect sense they'd earn more on average PR(nearly 20% more) as they note women do better in education, so will likely get more higher paid jobs as a consequence. Plus more men are likely to drop out of education before even the leaving cert which would again slant the stats.

The addition of children complicates things. Women who chose to have a child earlier in adulthood are more likely to forgo third level so job opportunities are going to be less. They're still seen and act as the primary carers so time constraints will impact a career at any stage, but especially at the start of a career.

What I would like to see are the stats for say 30 to 35 year old women without children compared to men of of the same age range. I'll bet the farm the so called "paygap" and "glass ceiling" doesn't exist and indeed it seems goes the other way.

As for the "paygap" at the top? Similar things going on. More women are going to dial back when they start a family, many in my experience all too willingly, so that will impact their final earning potential. Secondly men, or more men than women are risk takers, rasher and adrenaline junkies(scientifically provable) and that mindset is more likely to be entrepreneurial, more likely to start their own business, or drive harder within a career for longer. They're also more likely to be obsessive and singular(some have even suggested that the Autistic spectrum is the male brain in extremis). A better stat to look at would be to compare like with like, IE compare men entrepreneurs with women entrepreneurs. Again I'll bet the farm their earnings are about equal.

Again we have the case of comparing "average women" with an "elite". However if one was to compare the "average man" with the same elite they would find themselves lower than the "average woman". At least 17% lower it seems.

But of course that won't stop the NWCI and others from bleating on about how Irish women are hard done by. And worse the EU and other bodies will actually take them seriously and miss "the other gender" and won't ask why they're falling behind in education and earn less. God forbid logic would ever get in the way of a daft doctrine. You honestly couldn't make this shít up.

Henry9

Wibbs wrote: »

You honestly couldn't make this shít up.

You could and they do. Contemptible as it is, it's no different from any politician bleating about 'under this government, x went up y%, but under the last government it was down in real terms blah blah', just cherry picking and obfuscating.

It's the media who parrot it word for word, and the drones who regurgitate it brainlessly who get my goat.
That and the very different way statistics are treated depending on whether they suit or not.

Try posting a number they don't like, you'll be swamped with 'attribution errors' and 'confirmation bias'. You'll be lectured about small sample sizes and correlation not being causation.

Pawwed Rig

It would seem like they are trying to hide it though as

the Gender Pay Gap for women with no children is -17% but this increases significantly to 14% for women with at least one child

on a brief read you would think that women are doing worse in both cases. That is why I wasn't sure I was reading it right.

iptba

(Oct 8 piece)

Is the UK a sexist country?
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/is-the-uk-a-sexist-country/

Discusses an unbalanced BBC programme on the issue. Author lists examples of disadvantages he believes men face (all seem to have been totally ignored by the programme).

iptba

(June 2014)

In 2014 Less Children Live With Their Father Than Ever. What Do They Miss? -
http://thespeaker.co/2014-less-children-live-father-ever/#sthash.7nX3XlzK.dpuf

Anyone know of a specific thread where posts like this could be posted, either in tGC or elsewhere?

ancapailldorcha

iptba wrote: »

(June 2014)



Anyone know of a specific thread where posts like this could be posted, either in tGC or elsewhere?

I started a positivity thread, would that be suitable?

ancapailldorcha

This article has a few good points about MRAs but saying "Misandry is not a thing" is just blinkered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anne-theriault-/mens-rights-movement_b_5049999.html

iptba

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This article has a few good points about MRAs but saying "Misandry is not a thing" is just blinkered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anne-theriault-/mens-rights-movement_b_5049999.html

Article is critiqued here on a forum for female MRAs: http://www.reddit.com/r/FeMRADebates/comments/21pmcm/mras_want_to_respond_to_why_the_mens_rights/ - they seem to make many of the points I might make if I had the time/inclination to do a response.

iptba

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I started a positivity thread, would that be suitable?

Probably good for some stories about fathers, certainly. Thanks.

iptba

Fair play to this guy who is pushing a giant testicle* across U.S. for cancer:
http://ballpush.org/

*well, a ball really.

tritium

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This article has a few good points about MRAs but saying "Misandry is not a thing" is just blinkered.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/anne-theriault-/mens-rights-movement_b_5049999.html

So many things wrong with that article that it just hurts my eyes....

py2006

tritium wrote: »

So many things wrong with that article that it just hurts my eyes....

Like this:

Misandry is not actually a thing, and pretending that it's an oppressive force on par with or worse than misogyny is offensive, gross, and intellectually dishonest.

py2006

Not sure how accurate this is, but even if you knock 10% off most of them it does make for shocking reading...

iptba

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure how accurate this is, but even if you knock 10% off most of them it does make for shocking reading...

Regarding divorce, the 90% figure I heard related to college-educated couples i.e. in college-educated couples who divorce, 90% of the divorces are initiated by women*. The overall figure as I recall was 65-70%.

*which is shocking if you're college educated.

iptba

(April 2014 piece)

Another initiative to help women

To increase the number of women on their faculty, Delft* decided to hire the 10 best women researchers they could find in a wide-open search.
http://curt-rice.com/2014/04/14/in-delft-men-need-not-apply-yes-its-legal/

I'm slightly out of touch now but when I was in college, there were quite a few courses that were mostly women (possibly all women in some cases e.g. Speech Therapy, Occupational Therapy).

*Delft=Delft University of Technology

iptba

(April 2013 article)

[This was based on a survey of teenagers]

Facebook bullying: 19-year-old men are most frequent victims of trolling

A study has revealed that 19-year-old men are the biggest victims of online bullying, the majority of which takes place on Facebook.

[..]

Media psychologist Arthur Cassidy said online bullying could have a "massive impact" on older male teenagers.

"Suicide rates are particularly high amongst this demographic, so it's worrying to hear that teenagers on the whole are choosing to deal with internet abuse themselves rather than speaking to parents or teachers for help," he said.

"Whilst some might expect girls to be more vulnerable online, this study shows that older boys are more at risk from trolling and cyber-bullying.

"Many boys feel under pressure to demonstrate their bravado, particularly on the web, but this attitude and male deficiency in coping strategies can make them more vulnerable and open to trolling."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/9932179/Facebook-bullying-19-year-old-men-are-most-frequent-victims-of-trolling.html

I'm glad there was no social media when I was in school.

iptba

18 Things Females Seem To Not Understand (Because, Female Privilege)
http://thoughtcatalog.com/mark-saunders/2014/04/18-things-females-seem-to-not-understand-because-female-privilege/

Far from a perfect article but I think highlights the point that men don't have it all their own way/always have it easy.

Wibbs

iptba wrote: »

Regarding divorce, the 90% figure I heard related to college-educated couples i.e. in college-educated couples who divorce, 90% of the divorces are initiated by women*. The overall figure as I recall was 65-70%.

*which is shocking if you're college educated.

Shocking it is Ipta, but we also have to take into account that these are US figures and there are cultural forces at work there that may or may not be applied elsewhere. Looking at the UK there's a similar enough pattern, but it's far less extreme. In Ireland the figure is much less extreme again. The divorce rate in Ireland was 0.7 divorces per 1,000 population in 2011, the second lowest rate in the EU.

I think too often we look at the US and US culture and extrapolate that to other western nations especially our own and the comparisons are often left a wanting. This goes for the crazy eyed feminism too. Even in the US that's very much concentrated in third level education. America is a culture of extremes in many ways. This recent "gender war" stuff being a good example. Nutbag feminists in the red corner, nutbag MRA's in the blue, fighting their fight in blogs and opinion pieces that wouldn't be outa place in The Onion. So just as I'd not look at Saudi Arabia's divorce rate to shine a light on wider human nature and trends, I'd be nearly as dubious applying American stats and experiences to our own. I'm more interested in how local culture and how that's affecting people. EG the growing disparity between men and women in education.

iptba wrote: »

I'm glad there was no social media when I was in school.

Ditto + a bazillion.

iptba

Peta Credlin* establishes women-only network to support government staffers

[..]

It follows an emotional address Ms Credlin made to female staffers in July in which she promised to help Coalition women rise through the ranks of public life.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/peta-credlin-establishes-womenonly-network-to-support-government-staffers-20141020-118vhs.html#ixzz3HHRmz1s8

General attitude seems to be: men-only networks: bad; women-only networks: perfectly fine.

*The Australian Prime Minister's chief of staff

iptba

Sad story. If the father is willing, I think joint custody should probably be the default arrangement.

Bob Geldof attacks family court over treatment of Peaches and Fifi: Singer says rulings made it impossible to take care of his children after he split from Paula Yates

- After 1995 split from Yates judges ruled she should take children with her
- It left Geldof, 63, only permitted to see them once a fortnight at the start
- Mother-of-two Peaches Geldof, 25, died from a heroin overdose in April
- Fifi, 31, revealed struggle with depression, drugs and alcohol in August

By Mark Duell for MailOnline

Published: 07:07 GMT, 24 October 2014 | Updated: 23:12 GMT, 24 October 2014

Bob Geldof has blamed Britain’s family courts for the emotional pain suffered by his daughters Peaches and Fifi.

Mother-of-two Peaches, 25, died from a heroin overdose in April, while 31-year-old Fifi revealed a lifelong struggle with depression, drugs and alcohol in August.

Now, Boomtown Rats singer Geldof, 63, has claimed the courts made it impossible for him to take care of his daughters following his separation from their mother, Paula Yates, in 1995.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2806056/Bob-Geldof-attacks-family-court-treatment-Peaches-Fifi-Says-rulings-impossible-care-children.html

AndreaCollins

As far as custody goes, fathers haven't a chance generally. Even if the mother is relatively unstable.

PucaMama

py2006 wrote: »

Not sure how accurate this is, but even if you knock 10% off most of them it does make for shocking reading...

the statistics they give about fatherless homes, how many are fathers prevented from being there and how many are fathers that never wanted to be there in the first place i wonder

Pawwed Rig

PucaMama wrote: »

the statistics they give about fatherless homes, how many are fathers prevented from being there and how many are fathers that never wanted to be there in the first place i wonder

I don't see why that would be relevant in the context of the statistic presented. It is looking at the 'victim' of the fatherless home rather than the father himself. I would guess the point is that 2 parent families (generally) provide a more stable upbringing with less chance of any of the issues above.

PucaMama

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

I don't see why that would be relevant in the context of the statistic presented. It is looking at the 'victim' of the fatherless home rather than the father himself. I would guess the point is that 2 parent families (generally) provide a more stable upbringing with less chance of any of the issues above.

considering its from avfm you would think they want to put out the idea its all fathers being kept from their children.

ancapailldorcha

I'd be quite interested to see how they've interpreted the word "fatherless". Is it being used to depict the absence of the biological father or just a father figure in general?

py2006

Rather than try to poke holes and seek some way to implicate men wherever possible. Let's try and focus on men's rights (the subject of this thread) and discuss/highlight thusly.

Pawwed Rig

PucaMama wrote: »

considering its from avfm you would think they want to put out the idea its all fathers being kept from their children.

There is most likely an element fathers being kept from their children. There is also likely examples of where fathers want no involvement in the lives of the children. There is also the case that single mothers are usually well able to raise good, decent, well balanced children whereas some have no interest in their child other than how much welfare or housing that comes along with it and let the child run wild. All of this is in the statistics above. Why not address the statistic rather than twist the conversation away from what has been posted?

It should be born in mind that these are American stats anyway and may not represent the Irish situation

iptba

Thought I'd post this somewhere:

ISIS Massacred Every Man And Boy Over 15 In Muslim Town

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’s (ISIS) single bloodiest operation to date — the execution of over 700 Shaitat tribesman over a three day period in August — received little to no coverage from western media outlets, The Washington Post reports.

continues at:
http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/21/isis-massacred-every-man-and-boy-over-15-in-muslim-town/

Wibbs

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

It should be born in mind that these are American stats anyway and may not represent the Irish situation

+1. I recall reading on this point before. That when income and education was plugged into the stats the differences between single parent families and two parent families were much slighter. However that was in Ireland, in the US there seems to be a much stronger correlation of disadvantage to single parent families.

As I mentioned before the US is a very different culture, especially in the area of social protection. Consider that over half of all personal bankruptcies in the US are down to medical bills, a situation that would be incredibly rare here, or in most EU nations and cultures. It also has historical differences in how different social groups like race fare in the population. While the world may have become more "American" in culture in the last 100 years, their experiences of social dynamics don't necessarily translate to other cultures that appear on the surface quite "American".

Take another angle, what some have termed the medicalisation of being a boy. That's extremely prevalent in the US but almost unknown here.