Serious Topic - Do Women Have More Rights Than Men?

Xiango · 27-06-2005, 06:45

This has always been something that bothered me. A while ago, women had no rights, and had to start all this bra-burning, protesting to get rights, and slowly but surely, the rights came to women one-by-one. The high numbers of female unemployment decreased adn work rights were given, enabling them to apply and get any job that a man does. Just because women were women doesn't mean they shouldn't get a job. The number of housewives reporting crimes against her at the home has decreased, and general manners towards women has majorly increased (opening doors, sitting them first at a table, etc).

But now, it seems, that men seem to be the minority. All a woman has to do is say that "this guy at work" has been eyeing her for the last month/week/year, and was making rude gestures towards her involving sexually explicit movements. Guaranteed that the woman will be believed before the man, even if the man is innocent. It is very hard for a man to prove the innocence as women take looking at their rear as sexual harrassment nowadays (it's a compliment!).

The number of male house"wives" has increased with the number of "independant" women around who would rather work than look after the kids (this is their choice, and i'm not saying they shouldn't have that choice). But, with this increased number of male house"wives", the number of male beatings from their spouse/significant other at home has also increased. Men are being bullied more than women now, and the perpetrators are women, and men still stuck in the macho "men work, women mind the children" egos.

A man will rarely, if even at all, win a case of sexual harrassment from a woman. It seems that women have an upper hand over men. They seems to have more rights, maybe not specifically speaking more legal rights, but more power anyway.

If a couple are married and have kids, and they split up, the mother has instant custody over the child. The father has to fight for custody. If the mother gets the child, the father has to pay the mother, but not vica-versa. People say that a child needs it's mother more: bull! The child needs both parents, but either will do should push come to shove (also depending on how the mother/father treated the child).

So, in your opinion, do women seem to have more rights than men?

(Oh, and before anyone thinks it, i'm not been chauvenistic, i just thought it would make a good discussion.)

carl hurles · 27-06-2005, 07:02

lol wemon do tend to have more rights but as for kids if they split up the mother doesnt have custerdy strait away it just depends on the motherand father there better makin arangments with each eg if there was 4 kids then father has 2 and mother has 2 but if there was only 1 child then they have to make arangments best for them like for instance if any of them work then theone that works shouldhave the child the days they dontwork but they are better gettin intouch with a solicitor so that if there isany complications then thev allready todthe solicitor and maby the solicitor can come to an arangment and it depends on thecercamstansers cuz iv lost my son through his dad an socia sevises telling lies i now cant even visit him

-pixie · 27-06-2005, 07:28

I would say that women are making up for lost time! I am lucky in the fact that I have been brought up to believe that the sexes are equal, but I remember my mother telling me about the massive pay rises she got in the 70's - to bring her inline with the male pay rate on LET! Its not that long ago that women were seen as inferior, as less capable.
I do think things have gone a bit too PC though, as far as work - people should be given the job on their ability, not because of their sex, or because the PC brigade have said they need another woman on board.
As far as custody of children in a divorce goes...hmmm. I am about to go all maternal now (which is a rarity for me!). Yes, technically, in an ideal world the child should go to the 'best' parent. But then you have to define what makes one parent better than another. Plus (and this is where I willprobably get shot down in sentimentality!), men don't 'do' pregnancy. They don't carry a baby round for 9 (horrible) months and develop that bond before a baby is even born. I don't mean that this makes them less of a parent. If my partner and myself split up, I would expect to get custody of our little boy, even though he is an excellent father. This would be for no other reason that I am the mother. Its difficult to explain, but he wasn't the one who had to put up with looking like a beached whale for 9 months. He wasn't the one who had a 3 day labour (during which I might add he popped home to go on his PC!). I am not one of these silly women who worship their offspring, but if push came to shove, I feel like I have 'earned' that baby.
However as the child gets older, I think they should have more of a say in whom they would like to live with and when they would like to see the absent parent.
I think the daft bints who have 4 kids by different fathers then play about with access, and use children as a weapon have given the situation a bad name. I fully agree with a child being able to see both parents whenever they choose - any parents who need a court to tell them this need their heads banging together.

carl hurles · 27-06-2005, 08:10

well ive got 2 kids by differant fathers and i sertanatly do not use them as a target i just simply was lookin for the right guy and used protection andstill gotpreg but when the fathers found out they ran like a mouse so u cant say that about every one cuz sometimes its diferant surcamstances

vorlon24 · 27-06-2005, 09:12

I am sorry pixie, but no one 'earns' children. Just because you carried them for 9 months and went through labour to have them, then to say you 'earned' them as a result makes them sound like commodities.

If 2 people were to split up, I would expect the father to fight tooth and nail for custody of his children - I don't think the mother should have the absolute right to automatic custody of the children. In our situation though, we would probably work out an amicable solution; neither of us would want to put our kids through any more pain than is absolutely necessary (but I can't see us splitting up anyway!!!)

I think it is appalling though that unmarried fathers have no legal rights over their kids.

In the workplace women seem to get treated more favourably than men. In many offices, the men have to wear shirts, trousers, ties, etc. In the heat of summer, trousers and ties can be very uncomfortable. I am not saying that they should start wearing dresses, but women aren't required to be as formal. If they were, it would be the female equivalent of suits for them as well as us.

In one company where I worked, we were allowed to wear knee-length tailored shorts when the weather got very warm, and the rules on ties were also relaxed, but I don't know of any other company that did this (and I have worked for a few!).

garinda · 27-06-2005, 09:13

Some interesting points brought up Xiango, where to start?

- Like Pixie said, the time before equal pay for equal work regardless of sex seems a totally crazy idea now but it is within the last 25 years that was put right.

-The fact that even when custody of a child is given to the Mother who then denies the Father access, and the law is unable to enforce it, is still wrong and needs addressing. l'm with Fathers for Justice on that one.

-As for women reporting flirting as more serious sexual harrasment, watch out 'cause l flirt with anyone, if you don't believe me make sure you are at the next meet at The Stag!

-pixie · 27-06-2005, 09:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by vorlon24

I am sorry pixie, but no one 'earns' children. Just because you carried them for 9 months and went through labour to have them, then to say you 'earned' them as a result makes them sound like commodities.

If 2 people were to split up, I would expect the father to fight tooth and nail for custody of his children - I don't think the mother should have the absolute right to automatic custody of the children. In our situation though, we would probably work out an amicable solution; neither of us would want to put our kids through any more pain than is absolutely necessary (but I can't see us splitting up anyway!!!)

I think it is appalling though that unmarried fathers have no legal rights over their kids.

It didn't come out how I wanted it to Vorlon. Of course I don't think of kids as some sort of 'commodity' that can be bought and sold. However I DO think that a mother has a very different bond to her children, than what a father has, as a result of pregnancy. I can't quite find a way to put it into words that convey it properly.

I was also under the impression that as of Dec 2003 the law had changed. If a couple is unmarried with kids, the fathers name has to be on the birth certificate for him to have parental rights. Before that I think they had to apply for parental rights.

carl hurles · 27-06-2005, 09:24

if the fathers name isnt on the birth catificate then thayjust have to aply for a dna test then if it shows up as there child then thay autamaticly getparantal responsability and get more rights

garinda · 27-06-2005, 09:31

Agree with Vorlon on the unfairness of dress codes.

What passes as suitable work attire for women in the work place, when men have to be suited and booted is very unfair.

17 years trussed up like a turkey running between Jermyn Street and Knightsbridge and now off to the acupuncturists in my sarong. Revenge is sweet and so are my legs.

vorlon24 · 27-06-2005, 09:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by -pixie

I DO think that a mother has a very different bond to her children, than what a father has, as a result of pregnancy.

You should see our daughter. She is very much 'Daddy's' girl, but I didn't have to go through pregnancy to bond with her. Yes, she goes to her mother for comfort, but the majority of the time she will come straight to me, and if I appear while she is getting comforted by her mother, she will put her arms out for me.

-pixie · 27-06-2005, 09:38

I'm not saying that a father has no bond with his children. I'm just saying that its different.

I think I'm arguing a moot point anyway. I'm not planning on splitting up with my partner, and even if we did I would like to think that we would reach an amicable agreement, rather than have the courts dictate to us.

garinda · 27-06-2005, 09:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by -pixie

I'm not saying that a father has no bond with his children. I'm just saying that its different.

I think I'm arguing a moot point anyway. I'm not planning on splitting up with my partner, and even if we did I would like to think that we would reach an amicable agreement, rather than have the courts dictate to us.

You may not be planning to split up Honey, but me and Chav are planning to run away together and fully intend to get custody using all our newly given rights.

Sorry to break the news to you like this,

Rindy, your children's new Mummy xxxxxxxxxx

-pixie · 27-06-2005, 09:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

You may not be planning to split up Honey, but me and Chav are planning to run away together and fully intend to get custody using all are newly given rights.

Sorry to break the news to you like this,

Rindy, your children's new Mummy xxxxxxxxxx

Now theres one for Trisha!

I think I'll threaten the Brat with this when he misbehaves!

chav1 · 27-06-2005, 09:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by -pixie

I'm not saying that a father has no bond with his children. I'm just saying that its different.

I think I'm arguing a moot point anyway. I'm not planning on splitting up with my partner, and even if we did I would like to think that we would reach an amicable agreement, rather than have the courts dictate to us.

if we split up this is the plan of action ..

you die

baby comes with me

baby grows up

we dance on your grave

you have been warned

lettie · 27-06-2005, 11:32

Parental responsibility depends on when the child was born. It applies to decisions which can be made for a child regarding medical treatment, education etc. If your child was born before December 2003 an unmarried father has to either,
a) Marry the mother or
b) register a parental responsibility agreement with the court or apply to the court for parental responsibility.

If your child was born after December 2003 an unmarried father has to
a) Register the birth of the child jointly with the mother
b) Marry the mother or
c) apply to court for parental responsibility.

Therefore if your child was born in May 2002 for example and needs medical treatment, even if the name of the father is on the birth certificate, if you are unmarried the mother must give consent technically. This could cause some problems within families when the father doesn't agree to treatment ie, Vaccinations, operations, blood transfusions as his wishes could be vetoed by the mother.

Hope this helps..