One up for equality???

[daltonr]

I think by the Women's Health Council] should rebut your argument that many women reqoice when men are disciminated against and that you very rarely hear women calling for greater equality in the way men are treated.

You've given ONE example of women addressing this issue. I think that counts as RARELY. They would fall under the enlightened category I mentioned above. But having seen/heard MANY (not most) women ignore (at best) or rejoice in (at worst) discrimination against men it'll take more than a paragraph by the Womens Health Council to rebut my original point.

Whenever I discuss this issue with women I'm met the defense that women have been discriminated against for years, so it's fine if men are discriminated against. That's no kind of equality.

Not that my original point matters too much, but you did ask for examples. My only real point was that the people complaining about Portmarnock could spent their time and energy on for more important issues if equality is their Thing.

I suspect there aren't too many members of the Travelling Community voting at Portmarnock either. Portmarnock isn't about equality, it's about a bunch of idiots deciding what type of person they'd like to be their friend. Which last time I looked wasn't illegal. And why would you want to hang out with a bunch of idiots who don't like women or travellers or anyone else they feel is "beneath" them?

-Rd

 

[Marion]

But having seen/heard MANY (not most) women ignore (at best) or rejoice in (at worst) discrimination against men it'll take more than a paragraph by the Womens Health Council to rebut my original point.

Ok. I accept your anecdotal evidence that women with whom you may be acquainted forms the basis of your argument. I guess we mingle in different circles.

Marion

 

[daltonr]

>>I guess we mingle in different circles.

Marion, If I'm not mistaken we mingled in the same circle at an AAM night out. I don't recall your personal views on these matters, but I recall some gender related issues coming up, specifically the relationship between single mothers and the fathers of their children, and the states treatment of them in rented accomodation (let's not reopen that can of worms here- just trying to jog memory).

On that particular night I don't remember any women at the table coming to the defense of men. Even though I don't drink the night is a bit of a blur so I can't say for sure.

I should explain that my attitudes on these matters were formed in school when one (MALE) teacher decided to introduce "Positive Discrimination" by banning boys from playing basketball and volleyball, on the grounds that girls didn't play hurling. This despite a long history of perfectly happy students playing mixed basketball.
Note: Girls weren't banned from playing hurling under this deal.

It's amazing the silly things that still rankle all these years later and end up colouring our perspective forever.

-Rd

 

[Marion]

Hi Daltonr

In fact I do recall the conversation - kinda! There were a number of different topics being discussed at the same time - individualisation and tax and I do recall a mention of single mothers who care for their children being provided with houses.

I also recall someone mentioning that single men find it difficult to get accommodation provided for them.

I don't recall anyone mentioning single fathers who care for their children and their rights to accommodation. If the conversation had developed I'm sure there would have been plenty of agreement. But it didn't. The topic moved on prior to its development.


Marion

 

[daltonr]

If the conversation had developed I'm sure there would have been plenty of agreement.

Actually the conversation did develop to a discussion on how the current welfare arrangements make it more attractive for the mother to take the child and live alone with it, than allow the father to move in with them.

But we're digressing here. I just wanted to point out my experience that Many women who I have discussed equality with treat it as a one way street.
You may well not be one of those women.

-Rd

 

[Marion]

The substantive discussion appears to be over so I hope people don't mind a little digression. Does anyone know of (m)any young single fathers who actually take care of their baby at home with his parents. Obviously, in my job, I see lots of young girls who get pregnant and who are the prime carers of their baby in their parents home. But, I do know of one young man who had broken up with his girlfriend and two weeks after she had the baby she brought it to his home and said that he could look after it. He did with the help of his parents.

Marion

 

[daltonr]

But, I do know of one young man who had broken up with his girlfriend and two weeks after she had the baby she brought it to his home and said that he could look after it. He did with the help of his parents.

I know of one guy who was raised by his single father, but I don't know the circumstances that led to it.

Are you saying that men are in some way negligent in not taking on this responsiblity? Or that there should be a more equal divide between single mothers and singel fathers.

I suspect that there are many fathers who would love the responsibility but would never be allowed either by the mother or the state. It's hard enough to get access to them let alone get custody.

It's a fact of life that children of single parents will by and large be cared for by their mothers. Do you know of any single mothers who've tried to give the kid to the father and been rebuked?

The point I raosed above was the situation where the couple would like to live together but the state gives them more money if they stay apart. You end up in some cirsumstances with the couple living together, telling the state they are living apart, and the state renting rooms in two different places, with one of the rooms being unused.

This does happen, I've seen it. It's not hearsay.
Is it anywonder the state rents 40% of all rental accomodation?

-Rd

 

[Marion]

Are you saying that men are in some way negligent in not taking on this responsiblity? Or that there should be a more equal divide between single mothers and singel fathers.

There are 2 sides to every coin. There are men who are negligent of their responsiblities and maintenance and there are women who will try to deny access to their child. Both parties are wrong.

It's a fact of life that children of single parents will by and large be cared for by their mothers.

This is the current position but it doesn't have to be the status quo.

We have moved away from the day when reluctant couples were marched up the aisle when the girl became pregnant. But, we have a long way to go in educating young girls and boys on their rights and responsibilities when the girl becomes pregnant. Young boys need to be educated that they have responibilites when they father a child. Likewise, young girls need to be educated that having a child doesn't automatically mean that they have to be the prime carer. This tranformation in societal thinking obviously won't happen overnight. I think a start has been made in some schools where both boys and girls have to look after a realistic "baby" and their treatment and care of the "baby" is monitored by a built in program It is a start.

I raosed above was the situation where the couple would like to live together but the state gives them more money if they stay apart

Single Mothers’ – (that should be changed to become Single Parents’) Houses are given in good faith by the State, in the main, to a mother and child because they don’t have the support of the father of the baby. There are many women in this category.

If there are couples who wish to take care of their baby and who are in need of accommodation, then they should apply under a different scheme for a home – not the Single Mothers’ Houses Scheme. These houses should be kept for those for whom they are intended.


Marion

 

[Purple]

If there are couples who wish to take care of their baby and who are in need of accommodation, then they should apply under a different scheme for a home – not the Single Mothers’ Houses Scheme. These houses should be kept for those for whom they are intended.

I agree completely. Much of the bad press that "single mothers" get (and yes, it should be single parents) should be targeted at couples that have a child but choose to steal from their neighbours by cheating the state by claiming benefits that they are not entitled to.
I know of one couple where he bought a house and rented it to his partner. In theory he still lives with his parents but in reality he lives in his house with his partner and child. The department of social welfare pay for the shopping, the government pay the mortgage and the eastern health board and St VDP furnish the house. He earns in excess of €60'000 a year.
That has nothing to do with equality it's just stealing.

The reality is that most loan parents are women but that should not stop the law being gender neutral. I don't think that is the case at the moment, certainly in the application of the law, which is what matters.
I also think that the earlier point about the role of women as carers in the constitution and how it should be looked at in the context of where we are as a society is very valid. If the role of men as breadwinners had been there in the 40's do you think it would still be there now?

 

[daltonr]

If there are couples who wish to take care of their baby and who are in need of accommodation, then they should apply under a different scheme for a home – not the Single Mothers’ Houses Scheme.

If any of us were living on the kinds of money we're talking about here we'd do the same thing. I certainly would. Do you think I'd give a toss that I should have filled out a FORM XYZ1 instead of a FORM XYZ2. Of course not.

I wan't the solution where I get the most money. If the state has a scheme whereby we get more money by not getting together as a couple, or by lying about whether we live together, then the only question is..

Will I lie and live together, and be honest and dump him/her.

A very simple solution would be for the state to recognise that where both parents are going to be receiving welfare anyway, it's better to give them what they'd be getting if they lived apart, avoid having to pay for unused extra accomodation, and give the child two parents in the home instead of one.

This area is full of pitfalls, but the current system is not a good one.
Thankfully I have no direct experience of either welfare or single parenthood, but I've seen both at close enough quarters to see something is wrong.

-Rd

 

[nopotatos]

Women wear the pants in this country. no question about it

 

[MonsieurBond]

The reality is that most loan parents are women...

Is this a comment on the credit-fulled lifestyle of lone parents?

There was an interesting piece on the 9:00 news a few weeks ago saying that people on low incomes were ripped off by banks and credit institutions more than more affluent people.

 

[icantbelieve]

Equality doesn't and shouldn't exist by default in a market driven society like ours, why shouldn't women (like men have to and have always had to) simply change employer if they're not being paid what they consider to be the optimum wage they can earn.
Within the work place there's vast differences in salaries paid by different companies in different locations irrespective of whether your a man or a woman. During the IT employment boom riduculous salaries were being paid because the employee had the power to say that if you don't pay the going rate you won't get the workers.
If an employer pays less for a female employee than for a male then it means its because they'd prefer a male employee, a preference they're perfectly entitled to. If it's because of a mistaken assumption that the male will be more productive then like any poorly made business decision it'll cost the company and make them less effective. But it's still a business decision and one which the company should be allowed to make the same as any other decisions that affect their effectiveness. The market very quickley sorts out who is performing optimally and who isn't.

 

[daltonr]

>There was an interesting piece on the 9:00 news a few weeks ago saying >that people on low incomes were ripped off by banks and credit institutions >more than more affluent people.

There was a very interesting piece on Vincent Browne about the fact that many on low incomes don't have either a Passport or a Drivers licence and some don't even have utility bills and so can't even open a bank account.
This facilitates the Money Lenders some of whom aren't licenced.

I was also surprised to hear that some of the legal (licenced) Money Lenders can charge APR's of 100%+.

Isn't it a grand little country where the stage can drive the worst of in society into your arms, and the staste then licences you to take 100% APR from them.

-Rd

 

[RainyDay]

If an employer pays less for a female employee than for a male then it means its because they'd prefer a male employee, a preference they're perfectly entitled to. If it's because of a mistaken assumption that the male will be more productive then like any poorly made business decision it'll cost the company and make them less effective. But it's still a business decision and one which the company should be allowed to make the same as any other decisions that affect their effectiveness. The market very quickley sorts out who is performing optimally and who isn't.

You are probably already aware of this, but no company is entitled to pay males more than females for the same work. That would be against the law.

 

[icantbelieve]

I'm aware of the law but are many jobs exactly identical outside of heavily regulated demarcation areas like the civil service. My point is that even men are paid differently for what is in essence the same job and that woman already have the same options as men to improve their salary. Let markets regulate it, is it any fairer, for example, that a women (or man) in this country is paid vastly more for the same work than a woman in Aisia by the same multinational corporation. It's supply and demand or "pay peanuts get monkey's logic", if a company underpays an efficient male employee they face losing him to a competitor, it's not any different for women but for some reason legislation is also demanded and where there is generalised legislation there's abuse of it. We're in a virtually full employment economy which is one of the best ways of guarenteeing worker rights not a one size fits all socialist imperative.
We aren't all equal, some are better than others (within specific fields, this isn't a statement that better workers are better people) men and women and as we all know luck plays a big part, but that's life.
The most intelligent, hardworking, productive people can be hit by a bus as easily as anyone else, is it fair, no, is it life, yes.

 

[stuart]

We're in a virtually full employment economy which is one of the best ways of guarenteeing worker rights not a one size fits all socialist imperative/QUOTE]

I understand the point you are making, I do not believe in possitive descimination either
But what about when we don't have nearly full employment

 

[soc]

You are probably already aware of this, but no company is entitled to pay males more than females for the same work. That would be against the law.

Yes - but there is no way of proving it. I can't just walk up to any male colleague, and ask:
"Hey mate, what sorta salary are you on?"

Even if I accidentally find out other guys salaries - wouldn't show good character to say to the boss:
"Hey xxxx is on €€€, why aren't I earning the same?"

The first thing the boss would ask is: "How do you know this?"...

Then what?

-soc

 

[icantbelieve]

I understand the point you are making, I do not believe in possitive descimination either
But what about when we don't have nearly full employment[/QUOTE]

It doesn't work like that, what if's don't count, you play the hand you're dealt and anyway the same thing applies in a higher unemployment economy except even more so. Companies would have to be even more effective as there wouldn't be the consumer spending power there is now which can mask ineffectiveness somewhat. if the market is allowed to functino correctly then in times of higher unemployment it's not women who make up the unemployed its those for whom there is no market for their skills or whose skills aren't of a level required by employers.
The bottom line in business doesn't change with employment levels, hire the best you can afford to be the most productive to return the most profit.

BTW as regards the original post about Portmarnock golf club's "discrimination", why shouldn't a group of men decide that they want a men only club. Why should they be labelled as neaderthals or bigots and what has a drinks licence got to do with it. Women have all sorts of activities which tend to be exclusive to them and the issue of men joining doesn't exist. This doesn't mean that given the chance women wouldn't turn around and exclude men it simply means that the opportunity hasn't arisen. IMHO this is because men recognise a demarcation between the sexes and have less of an inferiority complex that makes a lot of women decide to pursue what were once considered male activities. I'm not saying that there aren't women who just want to do something because they like to but there is a large amount of "anything a man can do I can do". Men don't even come close to this, I recognise that there's a million and one things that women can do that I can't and many of these neither I nor any men have the slightest interest in attempting even if it were only to show that "if a woman can do it so can a man".
There was a music video recently where there's one guy in amongst a workout session of barely clad, beautiful sweaty women, could you imagine this in reality, the guy would be politely asked to leave as he would be making the women feel uncomfortable. This would be correct, irrespective of whether he was as pure as driven snow, because people should be allowed to gather together amongst what they as a group perceive to be like-minded individuals.

 

[podgerodge]

The Last Word on TodayFm had the director of the womens council on. ( a woman - I guess they didn't give any men a chance at at the job).

She blamed the lower proportion of female politicians on the fact that men won't take on more child care duties and due to the "male ethos" that exists (in her own head). She disagreed with Matt Coopers assertion that men and women vote vote for candidates and that this was democracy. She was all for the latest political party craze of putting "one woman one man" forward for elections. This according to her should be done regardless of whether 2 men may be better qualified. (or 2 women for that matter but I guess she would have no problem with that). A big Male conspiracy.

Thankfully a few women rang up complaining about her ridiculous attitude.

Please please someone set up a female only golf club and let them see that (I hope) most men would not give a toss. I don't play golf but it sickens me to think that people cannot be free to set up clubs of any description that allows them to mingle with whom they wish.

Finally, I know quite a few females that acknowledge freely that they CHOSE to have children, CHOSE to take on most of the childcare duties, and CHOSE not to go for higher end jobs that would impair their ability to do so. Funnily enough, these women are "responsible" for a higher proportion of male management and form part of the general statistics bandied around the place. Not descrimination though.