One instance that I’ve noted is the patronization of older women. Whenever an older woman is the victim of a crime or does something heroic like beating off an attacker, the headline will inevitably mention that she is a grandmother. You rarely, if ever, see a headline like “Grandfather, 75, Kills Intruder”. I’m not sure who is being discriminated against in this scenario but the differences are clear.
Even before that, many medical insurance policies (and not everybody has insurance) do not cover pregnancy or delivery.
Your brother, when he married her, agreed to let her stay home rather than working (and lets not quibble about his agreement - he stayed married to her for 15 years of not working - that’s agreement), benefited from her caring for his house, preparing his meals, paying the bills, arranging for the yard, booking his appointments, etc. And if she didn’t do any of those things he agreed to that too - again, by staying married to her for 15 years while she did nothing.
Alimony is based on a basic mathematical formula - if you don’t like it, that’s perfectly fine, but it’s not sex descriminatory.
Also, I’ll just leave this info here:
There are more of these here if you’re interested:
It’s discriminatory that there is no deduction for the cost of hiring outside help to replace the lost household labor.
I only know of 1
In the Police in the UK.
You can have the Police Officers Association - open to all
You can Have the Women’s Police Officers Association - Women only.
You can Have the Black Police Officers Association - Coloured Officers Only (both Male and Female)
Bet you cant Have a Male Police Officers Association (or a White Police Officers Association)
Not really saying you should but you should not be able to discriminate about colour or sex - either positive or negative. One leads to the other. But its the only example I know of for Men not being allowed or discriminated against.
But would be equally discriminatory if it was the woman working outside the home and the man being a house husband.
Sorry - there’s lots of sex based discrimination out there, but alimony isn’t it.
I bet you probably can, but beyond that: you do realize why those other groups were probably originally formed, right? Back in the day, it’s very likely that the black officers or female officers were intentionally not included in the outside of work activities and fun times that the white male officers had, so they created their own groups. Sure, in 2012 it seems a bit ridiculous, but in 1960 it was probably more necessary than anything.
You’re not wrong. I was one of the complainants. Not happy at all about this.
Is anyone still spouting the “If men got breast cancer they’d have cured it by now” line? I used to hear it a lot but not so much nowadays. Which is good, because it’s sheer idiocy because 1) men DO get breast cancer and 2) male-only cancers remain uncured.
I once had an agency for secretarial temps tell me that they only placed women. I was not in a position to sue them at the time but instead went and found a better temp agency.
Are thes the same people who claim that if women were the presidents of countries, there’d be no more war?
Last I checked, all cancers lack cures at this point in time. It’s not like woman are all giggling and laughing at men and their prostate cancer, while we all go get the anti-girlie bits cancer vaccine.
Probably. I’ve heard that one in person too, usually followed by me saying “Two words: Margaret Thatcher”.
I’m not saying women are hogging all the cancer drugs; I’m saying that people who think that breast cancer isn’t cured already because it doesn’t affect men are idiots.
But again, this one seems to have gone away since the 1980s when I heard it most. Or maybe I just hang out with a better class of idiot these days.
Still waiting for someone to explain how the so-called discrimination against men here in these commercials leads to broad social consequences for men, or how it sets men back as a group in society.
Golda Meir. Indira Gandhi.
You mean Gardasil? You might not be laughing, but you are surviving thanks to disproportionate health spending.
I agree. Very little of what has been mentioned so far is actual gender discrimination, it’s mostly complaining about things that men don’t get the upper hand on. Paying to get into clubs? Having to pay alimony? This doesn’t negatively impact your gender in a social context. Nobody sees having to pay alimony as demonstrative of the deficiency of your gender. Disproportionate medical spending isn’t gender discrimination either, just because a lot of money goes towards funding breast cancer research (you can thank Susan G Komen for that) doesn’t mean those research discoveries don’t result in cross-application to other types of cancer.
I think the refusal to hire men for positions that involve working with children is an unfortunate example of gender discrimination, because it does perpetuate the belief that all men are soon-to-be child molesters.
What she said. Plus, I was told by my gyno when Gardasil came out that I was too old/ had too much sex for it to really be a worthwhile endeavor for me. So, no, Gardasil isn’t helping me survive at all, but it is helping lots of younger girls and boys not have to suffer with HPV like some of my friends have had to. Perhaps if more money had been spent on Gardasil earlier on, I wouldn’t have just barely missed it and you’d have a point. . . except you don’t.
The point is it is indicative about some people’s attitudes towards men. Just like many people cite TV adverts as indicative of attitudes towards women.
As an aside (and I’m not saying this is offensive), I remember an advert where a woman stops time. They show the product and all that, and at the end she playfully pinches the bum of a male cyclist who is still paused. Think of that with the genders reversed!
Those are both examples where men get worse treatment than women, not just “not the upper hand”.
And there have been plenty of other examples: custody, some jobs, cancer spending. This is not to imply men have a worse time of things overall, but the thread doesn’t claim that.
It is highly reflective of your mindset that you jump to this conclusion.
At the time of marriage:
She: HS Educated legal secretary, salary: 35K
He: Graduate degree, salary 34K
To be clear, the issue that I have with alimony is that IMHO it should be allowed in order to restore job skills for the spouse of no income. It should in no way provide for the “maintenance of lifestyle”, which is a de facto judgement of the courts today.