Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

The Corinthian

I think this thread is veering off topic. I don't say this as some form of back seat moderation, but to highlight that it is doing so simply because one of the biggest problems facing men is the continued myth, perpetuated by mainstream feminism through misinformation, denial and wilful avoidance, that men somehow have nothing to complain about; there is no discrimination against men as a gender apparently.

As a result, all to often we see these discussions turn from their original topic to the exhausting need to dispel such falsehoods, often to the same posters who have made the same false claims in the past. It really is exhausting to have to deal with such constant bigotry, over and over again - although this may well be why they do so in the first place.

This thread was raised on the basis of an article that 'gendered' a social issue - it placed all the blame where it came to rape to men, not only those men who commit rape, but even those who are innocent.

Such generalizations are vile and no gender, no subset of society, be it based on sex, ethnic origin, sexual orientation can or should be so defined. The closest we can get to doing this with any validity is that any subset of society will always have a tendency twoards subconscious self interest, but that's not because they belong to any particular subgroup, but because they are human and that's unfortunately what we tend to do as humans. Even then, tendency does not go so far as to taint every member of that subgroup.

The bottom line is that articles, such as the one that kicked off this thread, would never be tolerated if aimed at any other subgroup in society. Moreover, they're no longer on the fringes, but increasingly enjoy the support of the establishment.

And that is simply something that cannot be allowed in a civilized society.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Read the thread; that's what the topic of it largely is about.

Define family. Not all families are based upon standard, happy relationships between the mother and father. Many relationships fail. Many relationships didn't exist in the first place.

Just because it sounds like a nice, positive approach doesn't mean it is. As things stand, without a reform of family law, your 'family ethos' is just more of the same.

Or tell me; were the tables turned, and fathers automatically got custody of the children, able to cut the mother out of her children's lives, would you be as enthusiastic to promote a 'family ethos'?

I already said that I didn't want to drag the discussion off topic further into one on father's rights.

However, if you did want to focus on a 'family ethos' you have to first reform what that ethos is, removing the inequities first. Give equal rights to both genders to their children. Remove the presumption that only one gender is the natural carer and award custody based on the child's best interests rather than this presumption. Enforce the rights of the non-custodial parent (father or mother).

Only then can you begin to talk about 'family ethos' seriously.

Whatever.

I'm well aware in this day and age families come in all shapes and sizes.

Good luck with reforming Irish family law. I really don't know what you meant by saying men are not part of families in the current system. Honestly I don't believe this is true.

And when I see cases like this, http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/10/caught-in-custody-fight-5-year-old-boy-to-be-sent-to-ireland/ then I don't think your assertions have too much credibility.

Do you have any data to back up what you are saying?

So what other rights to men supposedly not have? That are not related to fatherhood.

Honestly it sounds as bull**** as the feminists.

clairefontaine

Wibbs wrote: »

While I think the article is badly written in more than a few places I don't see how it's gendering of social issues. Pregnancy and abortion are about as gender based as you can get. As a man I'm kinda on the sidelines*. Maybe I'm missing something?

Yep I agree with you there. If you have a view and express that in a medium that invites commentary, removing that commentary(unless it's clearly abusive) just because it doesn't agree with your view is pure cowardice.



*I do have some issues around it. EG in the wider areas of reproductive choice. As a man I can't legally "terminate" my fatherhood. I'm stuck with it and the decision of the woman/mother. If she decides to terminate the pregnancy I have no say, but if she decides to bring a child to full term I have no say either and after that I'm responsible in law as a father. Though TBH I can't see that changing until we get artificial wombs. Until then like I say I'm gonna be a bystander because of nature and my gender, just as a woman goes through pregnancy because of nature and her gender.

I think he's trying to say the article is blaming men for relentlessly controlling women's bodies. But technically the lawmakers by and large are men so...

It's weird the level of writing has gotten so poor.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

And when I see cases like this, http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/07/...nt-to-ireland/ then I don't think your assertions have too much credibility.

Thank you for illustrating my primary point in my last post. Why don't you do a search on my past posts on this subject, or those of one of the other posters here. We've had to repeat the same proofs - often to the same people - so many times at this stage, I suspect we're all sick of it.

Whatever

If that's how you feel about opinions that differ from yours, then I'll leave you to it.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Thank you for illustrating my primary point in my last post. Why don't you do a search on my past posts on this subject, or those of one of the other posters here. We've had to repeat the same proofs - often to the same people - so many times at this stage, I suspect we're all sick of it.

If that's how you feel about opinions that differ from yours, then I'll leave you to it.

Who is WE? For whom are you speaking this time?

That's not how I feel about opinions that differ from mine, that is how's feel about your specific opinion. Yep whatever. Fighting paper tigers.

ToxicPaddy

Mod Note:

Ok guys, getting a bit heated in here.

Time to talk a step back and calm down. No personal attacks or taking digs at each other.

KyussBishop

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think he's trying to say the article is blaming men for relentlessly controlling women's bodies. But technically the lawmakers by and large are men so...

Why does the gender of the lawmakers matter though?


I've been trying to keep track of this thread for the past few pages or so, as it's not a topic I know a great deal about, but I'm finding it's rather hard to follow and make sense of a lot of discussion.

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

Why does the gender of the lawmakers matter though?


I've been trying to keep track of this thread for the past few pages or so, as it's not a topic I know a great deal about, but I'm finding it's rather hard to follow and make sense of a lot of discussion.

I think the presumption is that the lawmakers are men and if the lawmakers were women wed have different laws, ie legal abortion.

Agent Green

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think he's trying to say the article is blaming men for relentlessly controlling women's bodies. But technically the lawmakers by and large are men so...

It's weird the level of writing has gotten so poor.

Lawmakers are women as well - just because they're in the minority doesn't obviate their responsibility. Women were also responsible for the care of Savita Halapannavar. Women are also in opposition to abortion.

In other words - the so-called journalist is laying the blame for all of the above in her shockingly bad article squarely at the feet of men. She's a bigot. Another bigot. Not only that - she's 'arguing' as though the rest of Ireland actually agrees with her - which they most certainly don't.

Playboy

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think the presumption is that the lawmakers are men and if the lawmakers were women wed have different laws, ie legal abortion.

Are not the majority of pro lifers women?

The Corinthian

KyussBishop wrote: »

Why does the gender of the lawmakers matter though?

Because, the oft-made argument goes, as the majority of elected politicians are male, they naturally cannot have any feminist sympathies, or be swayed by the media, or reports that regularly come out of NGO's or otherwise legislate on the basis of pressure exerted from such groups or their own beliefs which would never go against their blind loyalty to their own sex - we're like the Borg, but with penises, after all.

Feel free to find the obvious flaws in that commonly cited argument.

KyussBishop

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think the presumption is that the lawmakers are men and if the lawmakers were women wed have different laws, ie legal abortion.

Okey - this is just the articles presumption though, not your own ya? (that's the part where I was getting a bit confused)

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'm sorry, but not all people are as lucky as you in their relationships. And if your attitude is 'tough' to them, then don't expect others to sympathize with you.

My attitude is not 'tough'. I think people should keep their legal bits in order. If you are in a relationship (especially wih children involved), make it legally be the case also. There are protections and rights granted. If it ends, dissolve it. I am well aware relationships break down, I am under no illusion there. Working towards equality should make that process fairer. There is a stigma in ireland against remarrying, or divorce. That needs to go.

Then we should be addressing this, not promoting it, which is what current legislation and daft policies such as quotas do.

i completely agree.

Men have plenty to complain about. Lack of paternity rights, the buffoonary image i see ingrained in media are the ones that affect me, and I'm a woman. Even as young as babies, the insidious Peppa Pig with her Silly Daddy who keeps doing stupid things for everyone to laugh at. Why would I want my child to think that's normal for a father figure? This article in the OP is more of it.

clairefontaine

KyussBishop wrote: »

Okey - this is just the articles presumption though, not your own ya? (that's the part where I was getting a bit confused)

Right.

It's not mine. I'm pointing out the articles assumptions, as I see them. That's what I thought the question was about.

I wouldn't assume women would make different laws. They might, who knows, but I wouldn't assume it.

clairefontaine

Playboy wrote: »

Are not the majority of pro lifers women?

I have no idea.

Playboy

clairefontaine wrote: »

I have no idea.

I think I did read some statistics somewhere that the majority of pro life activists are female. Anyway surely politicians endorse or support the pov that is popular with the electorate. I think its a bit ridiculous for the writer of that article to assume that abortion laws were invented by men to oppress women and they had no female support. Not sure what is going on at the Irish Times but it sounds like they need a new editor.

Lemming

Playboy wrote: »

Anyway surely politicians endorse or support the pov that is popular with the electorate.

Just an aside point here regards lawmakers, etc; politicians will chase what they think will get them the largest number of votes, not what is "most popular". The two are not necessarily mutually inclusive and the proof of that is Irish government policy towards the economy & young people might be radically different otherwise.

iptba

Playboy wrote: »

clairefontaine wrote:

I think the presumption is that the lawmakers are men and if the lawmakers were women wed have different laws, ie legal abortion.

Are not the majority of pro lifers women?

Playboy wrote:

I think I did read some statistics somewhere that the majority of pro life activists are female.

I recall seeing figures that overall women in Europe were slightly more prolife/anti-abortion than men. But it's not the first time I've heard a feminist claim lack of choice is down to male attitudes.

clairefontaine

Playboy wrote: »

I think I did read some statistics somewhere that the majority of pro life activists are female. Anyway surely politicians endorse or support the pov that is popular with the electorate. I think its a bit ridiculous for the writer of that article to assume that abortion laws were invented by men to oppress women and they had no female support. Not sure what is going on at the Irish Times but it sounds like they need a new editor.

Well even outside of abortion, its not like Mary Hearney did anything wonderful for women's health.

So... Just an aside from a woman point of view it must get really ****ing annoying when anything you do has a political statement attached to it thanks to feminism. You can't just be successful like a man can, it's like you have to be a poster girl too.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

My attitude is not 'tough'. I think people should keep their legal bits in order. If you are in a relationship (especially wih children involved), make it legally be the case also. There are protections and rights granted. If it ends, dissolve it. I am well aware relationships break down, I am under no illusion there. Working towards equality should make that process fairer.

Except that you only gave one, and a rather ridiculous, option for keeping one's legal bits in order:

pwurple wrote: »

There is already a fix in place for the lack of rights incurred for being unmarried, and that is to have the relationship and the family acknowledged legally, by getting married.

If you really wanted to advise someone to keep one's legal bits in order, then making sure that they applied for guardianship, if unmarried, would be the best advice, as it would afford an unmarried father the same rights as a married one. Indeed, if the mother opposed such a move, she's hardly going to marry the man, is she? Or if she were willing to marry him, but oppose guardianship, do you really think it wise that he should marry such a woman?

Instead, you presented only the extreme solution - a gunshot wedding - which is probably as bad as any advice can be.

All of which does not change the reality that even if married or otherwise keeping one's legal bits in order, as even with this in place, it does not change the fact that should the relationship (married or not) fail, the father will still end up at the short of the stick, getting custody only 8% of the time (typically only because the mother has rejected it) and then all those access and guardianship rights that he has by keeping his legal bits in order become useless, given the complete lack of enforcement of those rights in society.

So, even if you did not imply 'tough', you did ignore a huge swath of scenarios, dismissing them as exceptions when in reality they are anything but and limited your advice to something that one would expect from the eighteenth century, not the twenty-first. And that is effectively saying 'tough', even if you didn't intend it to.

There is a stigma in ireland against remarrying, or divorce. That needs to go.

Irrelevant. We could veer even further off-topic and discuss marriage and how it desperately needs reform to bring it in line with the twentieth century (let alone the twenty-first) too, but we're discussing men's rights to their own children, not marriage.

B0jangles

The Corinthian wrote: »

... keeping one's legal bits in order...
... keep one's legal bits in order ...
... keeping one's legal bits in order...
... keeping his legal bits in order....

Do you really have to be so snide all the time?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except that you only gave one, and a rather ridiculous, option for keeping one's legal bits in order:

If you really wanted to advise someone to keep one's legal bits in order, then making sure that they applied for guardianship, if unmarried, would be the best advice, as it would afford an unmarried father the same rights as a married one. Indeed, if the mother opposed such a move, she's hardly going to marry the man, is she? Or if she were willing to marry him, but oppose guardianship, do you really think it wise that he should marry such a woman?

Instead, you presented only the extreme solution - a gunshot wedding - which is probably as bad as any advice can be.

All of which does not change the reality that even if married or otherwise keeping one's legal bits in order, as even with this in place, it does not change the fact that should the relationship (married or not) fail, the father will still end up at the short of the stick, getting custody only 8% of the time (typically only because the mother has rejected it) and then all those access and guardianship rights that he has by keeping his legal bits in order become useless, given the complete lack of enforcement of those rights in society.

So, even if you did not imply 'tough', you did ignore a huge swath of scenarios, dismissing them as exceptions when in reality they are anything but and limited your advice to something that one would expect from the eighteenth century, not the twenty-first. And that is effectively saying 'tough', even if you didn't intend it to.

Irrelevant. We could veer even further off-topic and discuss marriage and how it desperately needs reform to bring it in line with the twentieth century (let alone the twenty-first) too, but we're discussing men's rights to their own children, not marriage.

By the 8% who get custody do you mean sole custody? Again are you referring to Irish fathers who are living in Ireland or also seperated Irish fathers who have children in Ireland and emigrated?

Does that 8% who have full custody might also mean it was only 8% of divorced seperated fathers who pursued it?

py2006

clairefontaine wrote: »

Does that 8% who have full custody might also mean it was only 8% of divorced seperated fathers who pursued it?

In a lot of cases the mother gets sole custody regardless of how good of a person/mother she is. Its rare that men will get full custody. Men are fully aware of this and are advised of this prior to considering any form of legal action.

I know a man who is a wonderful father to his children but he knows full well should they separate/divorce she will get sole custody despite her being a very dubious character and at times her parenting skills are questionable to say the least.

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

Instead, you presented only the extreme solution - a gunshot wedding - which is probably as bad as any advice can be.

You read strange things into my posts. Where did I suggest anything of the sort? There are thousands of people who live together, plan children, arrange IVF and/or genetic counselling, have the family and never bother with marriage. I'm not talking about shotgun weddings. I know from direct experience that these defacto relationships land in a whole heap of a legal mess later on. Not just guardianship, or access when separation occurs, but inheritance, next of kin rights, etc. If you don't identify yourself to the law as a couple or a family, how is the system to know and apply any of the the meager existing men's rights? This is WHY same sex couples strive for this kind of legal arrangement. You can call it whatever you like if the term 'marriage' is too 18th century for you. :rolleyes:


Here is the applicable section:
If a child in Ireland is born outside of marriage, the mother is the sole guardian. The position of the unmarried father of the child is not so certain. If the mother agrees, the father can become a joint-guardian if both parents sign a "statutory declaration". The statutory declaration (SI 5 of 1998) must be signed in the presence of a Peace Commissioner or a Commissioner for Oaths. http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/legal_guardianship_and_unmarried_couples.html


Other marriage hoopla aside, I am talking specifically about practicalities regarding men's rights. Guardianship does not occur at birth without marriage, so can you explain to me from a practical perspective how exactly would it increase men's paternity rights to suggest they go about arranging guardianship, which takes months at a very minimum? It's completely counter-intuitive to tell the system you are not involved, and yet demand involvement.

it does not change the fact that should the relationship (married or not) fail, the father will still end up at the short of the stick

Can you back that 'fact' up in any way? I know at least three women who pay spousal support to former husbands, so your very definitive 'WILL' can be replaced with 'mostly', or 'in a lot of cases', but certainly not 'will'. There is the chink which allows the light of progress in.

The whole point is, that by changing the law to give men more paternity leave and rights to their children, you should in turn even that out considerably.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

You read strange things into my posts. Where did I suggest anything of the sort?

I already quoted where in my previous reply to you. Here it is again:

pwurple wrote: »

There is already a fix in place for the lack of rights incurred for being unmarried, and that is to have the relationship and the family acknowledged legally, by getting married.

This is the only 'fix' you advised or suggested. You made no suggestion of other means such as applying for guardianship (which also legally identifies one's relationship with the child) or anything else, and this is why I have disagreed so vociferously with you. The first time you mention alternatives was just now in your last post.

Why did you only give this sole option, especially as it is objectively appalling advice unless marriage was already a likely option that was going to be taken by the couple to begin with?

pwurple wrote: »

I know from direct experience that these defacto relationships land in a whole heap of a legal mess later on.

Because if a relationship ends, the legal problems are lesser if the couple are married? How do you work that one out?

Other marriage hoopla aside, I am talking specifically about practicalities regarding men's rights. Guardianship does not occur at birth without marriage, so can you explain to me from a practical perspective how exactly would it increase men's paternity rights to suggest they go about arranging guardianship, which takes months at a very minimum? It's completely counter-intuitive to tell the system you are not involved, and yet demand involvement.

A father may apply for guardianship the day their child is born. The mother is then legally blocked from certain actions (leaving the state with the child or putting it up for adoption) until the case is heard.

Can you back that 'fact' up in any way? I know at least three women who pay spousal support to former husbands, so your very definitive 'WILL' can be replaced with 'mostly', or 'in a lot of cases', but certainly not 'will'. There is the chink which allows the light of progress in.

To begin with I was discussing paternity rights and not making any reference to spousal maintenance whatsoever, so I'm not sure where you got that from. Married or not, the fathers will still be very unlikely to gain custody, regardless of their role in child care, and enforcement of their statutory rights will be just as impotent as the court awarded rights of unmarried fathers.

The whole point is, that by changing the law to give men more paternity leave and rights to their children, you should in turn even that out considerably.

And how exactly did you make that point?

pwurple

The Corinthian wrote: »

I already quoted where in my previous reply to you. Here it is again:

Nope, still don't see anything there about shotgun weddings.

Why did you only give this sole option

I didn't say it was a sole option, I said it already existed... um, which it does?

Because if a relationship ends, the legal problems are lesser if the couple are married? How do you work that one out?

For a start they have a better chance of child custody if they are a guardian already, but I was referring more to death, next of kin, claiming life insurance, inheritance tax... you really have a chip about divorce going on there.

A father may apply for guardianship the day their child is born. The mother is then legally blocked from certain actions (leaving the state with the child or putting it up for adoption) until the case is heard.

The still wouldn't be able get any paternity leave and do the childcare though, which is what I thought we were discussing? So again, I ask, how would you suggest this practically work for a father who has no legal relationship with the child at birth? How are they to do the childcare.

And how exactly did you make that point?

Well, you made it yourself in post #321

So naturally, the solution to deal with this disparity would be to make childcare something which is gender neutral; that a man is seen to be and statistically as likely to take up.

I agreed with you and offered the further side-effect (as seen in a country which has this in place), post #348:

It is actually all tied up together. When a woman has lost her career and earning abililty by having to step out and become a child carer, while a man progresses his career unhindered... when a divorce occurs, a case can be made (and often is) that the man undertook to support her for the rest of her days. I would expect that attitude would also change if a womans earning power was not curtailed in the first place, or if it was split at the beginning. The reason it is unbalanced now is because the income and childcare is unbalanced.

clairefontaine

py2006 wrote: »

In a lot of cases the mother gets sole custody regardless of how good of a person/mother she is. Its rare that men will get full custody. Men are fully aware of this and are advised of this prior to considering any form of legal action.

I know a man who is a wonderful father to his children but he knows full well should they separate/divorce she will get sold custody despite her being a very dubious character and at times her parenting skills are questionable to say the least.

That doesn't really answer my question about the 8% figure bein thrown out there.

Is that 8% of the men who seek it in rhe first place and what is the number of separated /single fathers who petition for it?

If the numbers can't be contextualised and explained they are no different than the propaganda spouted by the article mentioned in the OP. Somif they can't be substantiated il hall it up to more gender propeganda along with the IT article.

py2006

clairefontaine wrote: »

That doesn't really answer my question about the 8% figure bein thrown out there.

Is that 8% of the men who seek it in rhe first place and what is the number of separated /single fathers who petition for it?

If the numbers can't be contextualised and explained they are no different than the propaganda spouted by the article mentioned in the OP. Somif they can't be substantiated il hall it up to more gender propeganda along with the IT article.

Well I am not certain on the actual statistics. That is something we will have to look up. But we can agree (surely?) that the percentage of men getting sole custody is going to be shockingly low?

May be I am wrong.

Zulu

py2006 wrote: »

May be I am wrong.

You are not, & it's daft to suggest otherwise (in the Irish context).

clairefontaine

py2006 wrote: »

Well I am not certain on the actual statistics. That is something we will have to look up. But we can agree (surely?) that the percentage of men getting sole custody is going to be shockingly low?

May be I am wrong.

Can you get the stats for women who get sole custody? The vast majority have shared custody, not 50/50 but still shared dont they?