Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

maguic24

clairefontaine wrote: »

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?

Yeah, if you count every second weekend for the father as "shared custody"....:rolleyes:

py2006

clairefontaine wrote: »

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?

Can you? I am not being facetious but this is something I am not expert in. Although, at a general glance as society it is quite obvious which gender gets sole custody in the majority of cases. This is just by own general observation though. Shared custody generally means the child resides with the mother and the father is allowed some access?

clairefontaine

py2006 wrote: »

Can you? I am not being facetious but this is something I am not expert in. Although, at a general glance as society it is quite obvious which gender gets sole custody in the majority of cases. This is just by own general observation though. Shared custody generally means the child resides with the mother and the father is allowed some access?

I'm not an expert either, but if I see a number grown around to inform a general assumption on which an entire perspective is built, ill query it. I can't give numbers either, but I'm not asserting anything steadfast about custodial orders inIreland.

Shared custody presumes a main caregiver and a visitation schedule where the child spends regular overnight time at the other parents home.)

Sole custody means one parent has ALL the time.

The Corinthian

pwurple wrote: »

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

Honestly, you're taking the piss now. So you tell us that marriage is the 'fix', don't bother to suggest any other option and because you only ignored every other potential 'fix' and didn't explicitly deny that others existed, then you weren't putting forward marriage as the only fix to father's lack of legal rights. I'm sorry, buy that is simply not believable.

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.

False. To begin with I've already pointed out that guardianship can be acquired regardless and during the period of waiting for the court case to be heard, the father's potential rights are protected.

Indeed, what you're discussing is only where a relationship is over even before the birth of the child, ignoring completely that guardianship can be acquired amicably in a healthy relationship where the parents are not married at any stage, although naturally the sooner the better.

Actually the only scenario where marriage may have any advantage over getting guardianship without it is where the relationship ends during pregnancy or within a few months, at most, after birth (and even in the latter, as long as the application is in, the father is covered). It makes no sense - unless you're suggesting men should marry women before having sex with them; just to be legally safe.

Then let's look at the other falsehoods in your last statement; Illegitimacy was abolished in Ireland a good while back. As a result a child's rights to claiming life insurance, inheritance and inheritance tax are the same - guardianship does not come into it.

Finally, I've only brought up divorce to highlight how little difference there is between statutory and court awarded guardianship - where a couple has had a belligerent breakup, child related disputes are as bad for the father regardless. So trying to turn this into a personal attack on views I may or may not have on marriage and divorce (especially as I never even mentioned things like spousal maintenance) is little more than a cheap ad hominem.

The still wouldn't be able get any paternity leave and do the childcare though, which is what I thought we were discussing?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that the proposed legislation only affords paternity leave to married men? Note that neither married or unmarried fathers have any at present.

Well, you made it yourself in post #321

Actually, I didn't. I made a completely different point.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Sole custody means one parent has ALL the time.

Legally yes, in reality not always. What often happens is that access can develop leading to over-nights, leading in turn to de facto joint custody. It is not unusual to have the mother with sole custody, but the father have access where the child stays with him two, three or more nights a week.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Legally yes, in reality not always. What often happens is that access can develop leading to over-nights, leading in turn to de facto joint custody. It is not unusual to have the mother with sole custody, but the father have access where the child stays with him two, three or more nights a week.

If its not unusual then how does this correspond with your 8% figure? That figure would also presume that 92% of mothers have sole custody?

Now your saying its not unusual that the child stays with the father two or three nights a week?

What???

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

If its not unusual then how does this correspond with your 8% figure? That figure would also presume that 92% of mothers have sole custody?

And legally they would have sole custody and be registered as such. Meanwhile, the fathers in question would have de facto joint custody which is only recognised as access.

Now this might sound great, and it does if you're a mother in this scenario, because if so, you still have the power to block this 'access' whenever you please with little fear of a court chastising you. As a result, while you'll get numerous cases where both parents have de facto equal custody, the father will still be paying full maintenance to the mother as she is legally recognised as having sole custody where, as you put it, "one parent has ALL the time" - except they don't.

As for the 8%, I was wrong; according to the 2011 census figures fathers make up 13.5% (9.8% if unmarried, separated or divorced and 22.6% amongst married* and widowed) of all loan parents.

The married/widowed figure might seem quite high for fathers having sole custody, but the bulk of that is widowers - statistically the best chance (40.9% of all loan fathers) a man has of having sole custody is if his spouse dies.

What that alone tells you of how men are seen in terms of their children is quite disgusting.

Now your saying its not unusual that the child stays with the father two or three nights a week?

You're confusing access with custody. Access doesn't actually give a parent any rights other to see or spend time the child, one can be a legal stranger (i.e. not a guardian) to the child and still have access. It's one of the reasons that paternity leave is such a safe option for feminism - it gives the illusion of rights to one's children without really giving any.




* Presumably the child comes from a relationship that pre-dates said marriage.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

And legally they would have sole custody and be registered as such. Meanwhile, the fathers in question would have de facto joint custody which is only recognised as access.

Now this might sound great, and it does if you're a mother in this scenario, because if so, you still have the power to block this 'access' whenever you please with little fear of a court chastising you. As a result, while you'll get numerous cases where both parents have de facto equal custody, the father will still be paying full maintenance to the mother as she is legally recognised as having sole custody where, as you put it, "one parent has ALL the time" - except they don't.

As for the 8%, I was wrong; according to the 2011 census figures fathers make up 13.5% (9.8% if unmarried, separated or divorced and 22.6% amongst married* and widowed) of all loan parents.

The married/widowed figure might seem quite high for fathers having sole custody, but the bulk of that is widowers - statistically the best chance (40.9% of all loan fathers) a man has of having sole custody is if his spouse dies.

What that alone tells you of how men are seen in terms of their children is quite disgusting.

You're confusing access with custody. Access doesn't actually give a parent any rights other to see or spend time the child, one can be a legal stranger (i.e. not a guardian) to the child and still have access. It's one of the reasons that paternity leave is such a safe option for feminism - it gives the illusion of rights to one's children without really giving any.




* Presumably the child comes from a relationship that pre-dates said marriage.

Ok I'm not nitpicking here, I'm confused and seeking clarity.

Ok so 22% of divorced fathers have a sole custody order and 9.8% of single fathers have one?

So presumably the remainder have shared custody orders? Which would be around 80 to 90% minus those who have zero custody because the mothers have sole custody?

Is it possible to get a number on the mothers who have sole custody orders? This number would certainly clarify any gender imbalance no?

What is the percentage of those those kids who have siblings with another father too and does this have a bearing on how the judiciary sets its custody orders? Is this even a significant enough number to consider?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok so 22% of divorced fathers have a sole custody order and 9.8% of single fathers have one?

No. To begin with the statistics cite loan fathers, not sole custody which, AFAIK, is decided in camera in court so the figures are not known.

Secondly, the 22% figure does not include unmarried, divorced or separated fathers - they fall into the 9.8% figure. Instead, the 22% denotes loan fathers who are married (with a child from a previous unmarried relationship) or widowed (single/remarried).

If you take away the widowers, this figure drops to 4.3%, or overall 8.4% of all loan parents being fathers. This is why I rather cynically noted that statistically it appears that the best chance for a father to get sole custody or be the loan parent, appears to be the death of the mother.

So presumably the remainder have shared custody orders? Which would be around 80 to 90% minus those who have zero custody because the mothers have sole custody?

Only loan parents are recorded. I also would not presume something like 80 - 90% of custody orders are joint. Big assumption.

Is it possible to get a number on the mothers who have sole custody orders? This number would certainly clarify any gender imbalance no?

See above. However of loan parents, mothers make up overall 86.5% of all loan parents.

What is the percentage of those those kids who have siblings with another father too and does this have a bearing on how the judiciary sets its custody orders? Is this even a significant enough number to consider?

The data does not cover that.

clairefontaine

So basically we don't have enough data to draw a conclusion.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

So basically we don't have enough data to draw a conclusion.

No, we have plenty of data to draw conclusions on. For example, lone parent would denote the primary carer for a child, with whom the child resides most, if not all of the time, as it's a socio-economic term for those eligible for payments for same. Thus while we can't say if the loan parent has sole custody, would be able to correlate the two.

Secondly, there's not much difference between a unmarried and non-widowed, formerly married fathers in terms of being a loan parent; more married men are, but not by much; 3.2% against 4.7% of all loan fathers.

What is a major factor for men, appears to be whether the mother is alive. That this is the single greatest group of loan fathers (40.7%) is probably the most damning conclusion of all - the mother has to be dead before the father is even considered. How's that for how we see fathers?

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, we have plenty of data to draw conclusions on. For example, lone parent would denote the primary carer for a child, with whom the child resides most, if not all of the time, as it's a socio-economic term for those eligible for payments for same. Thus while we can't say if the loan parent has sole custody, would be able to correlate the two.

Secondly, there's not much difference between a unmarried and non-widowed, formerly married fathers in terms of being a loan parent; more married men are, but not by much; 3.2% against 4.7% of all loan fathers.

What is a major factor for men, appears to be whether the mother is alive. That this is the single greatest group of loan fathers (40.7%) is probably the most damning conclusion of all - the mother has to be dead before the father is even considered. How's that for how we see fathers?

Primary carer isn't the same as having sole custody. I'd venture to guess, and I'm guessing because you have said numbers aren't available for this, that the amount of mothers who have sole custody, mightn't be that far off from the fathers that do. The vast majority have shared custody while being the primary carer.

The problem MAY be the way rights are practised de facto, in terms of on the ground protocols, permissions in schools, doctors, airlines, etc in not requiring or admitting powers and authorities from shared custodians who are not primary carers?

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'd venture to guess, and I'm guessing because you have said numbers aren't available for this, that the amount of mothers who have sole custody, mightn't be that far off from the fathers that do. The vast majority have shared custody while being the primary carer.

I think you'd need to have a little bit more evidence before making that gargantuan leap.

The problem MAY be the way rights are practised de facto, in terms of on the ground protocols, permissions in schools, doctors, airlines, etc in not requiring or admitting powers and authorities from shared custodians who are not primary carers?

That's a question of guardianship, rather than custody. Guardianship rights, such as those you mention, are generally ignored where it comes to the non-custodial parent.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

I think you'd need to have a little bit more evidence before making that gargantuan leap.

That's a question of guardianship, rather than custody. Guardianship rights, such as those you mention, are generally ignored where it comes to the non-custodial parent.

I'm not drawing any conclusion in either direction because the numbers are not there.

However it has appeared to me the that guardianship is a bit of an ad hoc set of rights, but in the context of rights in Ireland in general, its symptomatic of a rather flexible notion of rights, enforcement, and rule of law, citizenship rights are also rather flexible from what I can see.

The Corinthian

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm not drawing any conclusion in either direction because the numbers are not there.

Look, I've already pointed out a few conclusions in a previous post and explained my reasoning. If you disagree with them, then do so, but as you've not even mentioned them and can't appear to draw any of your own, I'm not sure what else I can say.

clairefontaine

The Corinthian wrote: »

Look, I've already pointed out a few conclusions in a previous post and explained my reasoning. If you disagree with them, then do so, but as you've not even mentioned them and can't appear to draw any of your own, I'm not sure what else I can say.

That's cool. I'm not here to convert you. I just am withholding any definitive conclusions and I don't expect you to convert me either. Vive la difference.

py2006

Our friend Una Mulally is at it again:

People don’t want to hear women mouthing off. That’s why opinionated women’s voices are marginalised on radio. It’s why female politicians attract more personal insults, and why ambitious women are viewed as full of themselves or bitchy or ice queens or all three. It’s also why O’Connor sparks controversy. She expresses opinions bluntly. The world wasn’t ready for Sinéad O’Connor, just like Russia wasn’t ready for Pussy Riot.

How this lady is allowed to write articles for the Irish Times is beyond me. You only have to read the comments after the article to get a feel for the reaction of the readers. It is not the first time she has made blanket generalisations without backing them up with any kind of evidence. We don't even get away with that here on Boards.

At least, she didn't put the blame solely on men this time!

Pawwed Rig

py2006 wrote: »

Our friend Una Mulally is at it again:

Ironic that she complains about being marginalised whilst preaching from the primary media pulpit in the state.

Wibbs

py2006 wrote: »

How this lady is allowed to write articles for the Irish Times is beyond me.

She sells ad space, because of her daft articles being... well daft. Simple as that. Anger porn for the rest of us.

At least, she didn't put the blame solely on men this time!

Give her time P, give her time...

Her articles are juvenile, "studenty" at best. You do wonder given our deep and impressive history of literature in this country we could find better than hacks like her? I'd reckon a quick trawl in an average secondary school, never mind university would turn up better.

Pawwed Rig wrote:

Ironic that she complains about being marginalised whilst preaching from the primary media pulpit in the state.

I have found her type, avowed "ists" of all hues, find irony a difficult concept to understand.

um7y1h83ge06nx

Another one of her articles -

http://www.irishtimes.com/culture/media/nothing-compares-to-sin%C3%A9ad-o-connor-1.1552145

Seems to be a fan of Sinead O'Connor.

She manages to use the whole Miley Cyrus thing to push her agenda again.

People don’t want to hear women mouthing off. That’s why opinionated women’s voices are marginalised on radio. It’s why female politicians attract more personal insults, and why ambitious women are viewed as full of themselves or bitchy or ice queens or all three. It’s also why O’Connor sparks controversy. She expresses opinions bluntly. The world wasn’t ready for Sinéad O’Connor, just like Russia wasn’t ready for Pussy Riot.

Again more gendering of issues. If O’Connor was a man would public opinion really be any different?

Poor Una has a hard life...

Some great read comments. Male poster:

she is a bitter feminist who sees oppression even in two women behaving like eejits.

This egotistical, bully sinead says "You can take five minutes today between g- string f000in' changes to publicly apologise and remove your abusive tweets." and things like this and Una thinks people, supporting and criticising, shows society doesn't want outspoken women!

So Una, if Bono was in sineads place(bit of an upgrade for sinead) and justin bieber in mileys... you are saying there would be no publicity or criticism.

Una is the most bigoted journalist I have seen in a mainstream paper.

A female poster:

'That’s why opinionated women’s voices are marginalised on radio.' I'm getting pretty tired of this. You keep doing this - making blanket statements such as these without any evidence of any kind. Why aren't you complaining about the fact that the Irish Times is overrun with feminists such as yourself? Jacky Jones, Jennifer O'Connell, Mary Minihan, Laura Slattery, Kate Holmquist, Anthea McTeirnan, Hillary Fannin, Ann-Marie Hourihane - why don't you whine about that?

py2006

Nathanael Jolly Barmaid wrote: »

Another one of her articles -

Ehem!

um7y1h83ge06nx

Ha, serves me right for not reading the last few posts!

GalwayGuy2

I heard a lovely little comment from someone from the Rape Crisis Ireland.

I'll paraphrase some bits, but the bit in italics is as true to my memory as possible.

She said that perceptions of rape need to change. And then she gave a bit of a any man can be a rapist thing. And then her example was 'A young boy might say to his teacher 'if you don't do things to me I'll tell people you did'.

I'm sorry, but am I the only one that doesn't believe it's healthy for a teacher to view her young male students as potential rapists?

clairefontaine

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I heard a lovely little comment from someone from the Rape Crisis Ireland.

I'll paraphrase some bits, but the bit in italics is as true to my memory as possible.

She said that perceptions of rape need to change. And then she gave a bit of a any man can be a rapist thing. And then her example was 'A young boy might say to his teacher 'if you don't do things to me I'll tell people you did'.

I'm sorry, but am I the only one that doesn't believe it's healthy for a teacher to view her young male students as potential rapists?

Holy Christ. The stupidly is beyond recognition.

Recently in my state a childcare worker (female) was convicted for raping an infant. Now I don't know the hows of it, and I don't want to because it will make me sick, but damned right the perceptions of rape need to change.

Oh and like a girl can't say the same thing to her teacher.

Why do these comments get airtime?

kiffer

clairefontaine wrote: »

Holy Christ. The stupidly is beyond recognition.

Recently in my state a childcare worker (female) was convicted for raping an infant. Now I don't know the hows of it, and I don't want to because it will make me sick, but damned right the perceptions of rape need to change.

Oh and like a girl can't say the same thing to her teacher.

Why do these comments get airtime?

Because they sell papers.

WhatNowForUs?

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

I heard a lovely little comment from someone from the Rape Crisis Ireland.

I'll paraphrase some bits, but the bit in italics is as true to my memory as possible.

She said that perceptions of rape need to change. And then she gave a bit of a any man can be a rapist thing. And then her example was 'A young boy might say to his teacher 'if you don't do things to me I'll tell people you did'.

I'm sorry, but am I the only one that doesn't believe it's healthy for a teacher to view her young male students as potential rapists?

I'd like to see the context of the argument or statement, where could I find it please.

The Corinthian

kiffer wrote: »

Because they sell papers.

Exactly. The amount of attention this child has gotten from what she's written is actually quite impressive. We all got sucked into it, although at this stage ignoring her is the better option.

What is the more pertinent question is not what she's written, but that as a society we do not react to such hate speech against men as we would against other groups in society. A simelar article directed against women, travellers, asylum seekers, or the like, would have likely resulted in the journalist losing their job by now, and/or the paper being sanctioned.

That is the problem, not some wanna-be feminist version of Kevin Myers. Indeed, even Myers doesn't go as far as she did.

Lemming

More dribble from the IT today, but from another columnist; Karen Lillington. I wont link it because to be frank it's not worth reading.

GalwayGuy2

I'd like to see the context of the argument or statement, where could I find it please.

All I can tell you was that I heard it on the 10-11am radio slot on Wednesday.

Maybe you can google if any of the members gave a radio interview?

Wibbs

Lemming wrote: »

More dribble from the IT today, but from another columnist; Karen Lillington. I wont link it because to be frank it's not worth reading.

The Twitter one? Oh why oh why don't more companies have women board members, we must have quotas. Dribble as you say.