Comments on: Father’s rights

By: jim jones

jim jones — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 19:21:06 +0000

Sarah, I’m afraid I have pointed out our break down in communication on at least two earlier occasions. I’ve just read your last post and had to read it a couple of time to try and make out what you meant to say.
You say that “We are shifting emphasis here from equality to equality of opportunity to discrimination” and that “They are all different things”. They may be different but they are all interlinked and some of the confusion may have been caused by such confusion or misinterpretation. For example, you also said “You can’t discriminate against someone on the grounds of gender, race or disability”. The problem is, you CAN. It may not be nice, it may be illegal and you may have to pay the consequences but the reason that the Equality Authority and the Equality Tribunal exist is because people actually CAN discriminate on the grounds of gender, race and disability and often do so. Maybe you meant to say that this is not allowed.
You then say that “equality of opportunity says that women can join the army or men can be primary school teachers” but try to clarify this by introducing the word “equalness” explaining that you previously called this “equality” which would “insist that half the army and half the nurses must be women or men”.
“Equality” is the state of being equal (Encarta) as in rights, treatment, quantity or value. By saying that equality is insisting that 50% of soldiers or nurses are male is confusing rights with quantity. Equality means that all men can be soldiers or nurses (rights) whereas if the army is 50% male and 50% female , then this would be quantity.
I think I know what you mean but it would be unfair of me to put words in your mouth, given that your original article was so critical of the male of the species(No one took away fathers rights: they gave them away. They ran off and came back to discover themselves surplus to requirements) yet you have since stated that you believe in equality.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 09:40:45 +0000

Hopefully Hugh and Rob have finally stormed off in a huff and slammed the door behind them.

Jim, I think you and I are arguing at cross purposes. We are shifting emphasis here from equality to equality of opportunity to discrimination. They are all different things. You can’t discriminate against someone on the grounds of gender, race or disability ie. everyone has to have the right to apply for a job or take that job, regardless of their demographic profile BUT that is quite different from imposing equalness which could be done by affirmative action. So, equality of opportunity says (for example) that women can join the army or men can be primary school teachers. Which is fine. Imposing equalness (which I previously called “equality” would insist that half the army and half the nurses must be women or men. I think that’s silly.

By: Hugh Hicks

Hugh Hicks — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 23:15:17 +0000

“Or start your own blog. Takes 5 minutes”

Great advice Sarah. I decided that if you can do it anyone can do it.

Look out for the Ministry of Truth (.eu of course), coming soon. All posts welcome, even if they do not agree with my point of view, and no post will be deleted on grounds of gender bias; so even you can participate Sarah.

By: Rob Hickey

Rob Hickey — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:20:35 +0000

“As for “keeping me in check” – touch the old paternalism there eh?”

What?

Is it because I’m a man I’m paternalistic? I’m just a member of society making a point. And the point I was making was that you of course are entitled to your opinion but others should equally be entitled to argue against it and in some cases prove you wrong.

Your paternalism jibe is based on a stereotype of cigar smoking men in Portmarknock Golf Club, keeping all the power for themselves. Grow up – its time to get off your high horse.

By: jim jones

jim jones — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 20:02:45 +0000

Sorry, Sarah but they can and they do. Its called the Equality Tribunal http://www.equalitytribunal.ie/index.asp?locID=59&docID=-1 and imposes equality as follows:

“The nine grounds on which discrimination is outlawed by the Equal Status Act are as follows:
â€¢ Gender
â€¢ Marital status
â€¢ Family status
â€¢ Sexual orientation
â€¢ Religious belief
â€¢ Age
â€¢ Disability
â€¢ Race colour, nationality, ethnic or national origins
â€¢ Membership of the Traveller community
The Equal Status Act 2000, prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services, the disposal of property and access to education, on any of the nine grounds set out below. The Act outlaws discrimination in all services that are generally available to the public whether provided by the state or the private sector”.

This means that a person cannot be discriminated (treated unequally) for any of these reasons.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:11:43 +0000

Jim, I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said. You were the one who took issue with the distinction between equality of opportunity and equality. All the state can do is provide the first. They can’t impose equality of everything on everyone.
That case will be very interesting. Maybe it will bring some progress for you guys. Complaining about feminists won’t.

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 19:11:42 +0000

By: jim jones

jim jones — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:57:18 +0000

We seem to have another breakdown in communications, Sarah.
I asked “Imagine, Sarah, that you were entitled to certain services (pay, school placements for your children, tax refunds, etc) but did not receive them simply because you are a women. Do you not believe that you should demand such services?”

but your answer was

“When women campaigned to get the vote or get education, access to contraception, right to work after they married etc, they campaigned for the right to do those things. They didn’t campaign to force women to do those things. Just because the right to work after they married was secured, it didn’t mean every woman had to keep working (economics aside)”.

I say that we are entitled to “demand” our rights as equal human beings but this doesn’t mean that if we get them that every man will have to behave as we do. I know people who don’t drive a car even though they are entitled to. But they can if they want, once they follow the rules like everybody else.
I know of parents that leave their marriages and don’t want to see their children or support them. I believe they should be made take responsibility for their children by supporting them but it may be harmful for children to spend time with a parent who didn’t love them.

In relation to your line “So you can make it legally and theoretically possible for men to say, take paternity leave equivalent to maternity leave. Doesn’t mean they’ll take it and it doesn’t mean they have to take it” I didn’t say anything that would imply that fathers would be obliged to exercise any rights they had but that does not take from the fact that they should have those rights.

This current case http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/0704/1183410236549.html
might be of interest to everyone as it should test the equality issue but I won’t hold my breath. It is important to note that this father was the primary carer. Imagine the opposite, with a single mother who was the primary carer having her two children taken from her.

I think Hugh was wrong to say “Sarah enjoys a successful career as a “journalist” and “social commentator” so I presume, although I know I shouldn’t, that she would be in a position to solve such irritations with money and influence”.
John Waters is also a journalist and social commentator but it didn’t help him. Bob Geldof can influence so much with his fame but still struggled to be allowed be a parent to his children

By: Sarah

Sarah — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:48:19 +0000

how do you know what he said Rob? I allowed Jim and Hugh to continue on with their posts until the feminist bashing started. All Hugh has succeeded in doing is being so cantankerous that he’s pissed off a supporter of his cause – which I have repeatedly said I am. Which is one of my main points. If you guys would stick to the point – achieving your justly deserved right to equal custody of your children whether married or not, and left Unicef and the feminists out of it, you would actually achieve something. Instead you’re so irritating you just annoy people instead of winning their support.
As for “keeping me in check” – touch the old paternalism there eh? I stood back long enough and let the lads at it..there’s such a thing as outstaying one’s welcome. Give me crewser any day…

By: Rob Hickey

Rob Hickey — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 18:40:03 +0000

Making valid points shouldn’t be taken as abusing you Sarah.

Your narrow minded views on equality (and the issues surrounding it), as well as your lack of respect for opposing points of view need to be kept in check.