Child protection, or what?
Rob
offenders public in the UK:
"Single mothers will be able to ask for the Criminal Records Bureau to
carry out a check on the background of a new partner or boyfriend, as
part of the drive to tackle the paedophiles who prey on mothers living
alone with their children. Pilot schemes in three areas giving single
women the right to ask for checks are to begin next month."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1637444.ece
In the comments section Bruce Haig asks a pertinent question:
"Can I ask for just such a check on my ex-wife's new flames, to
protect my young daughter who lives with her?"
He says he doesn't need three guesses to answer that one.
The new proposal cannot, therefore, really be about child protection -
as at least testing an equivalent provision for the natural father in
some of the pilot areas would be an obvious variant, and probably one
of the most effective child protection measures available.
So what is it really about, then?
--
Rob
There's no gender equality without paternal certainty and 50/50
physical child custody.
Mark Borgerson
robw...@yahoo.co.uk says...
> The following is from an article on making information about sex
> offenders public in the UK:
>
> "Single mothers will be able to ask for the Criminal Records Bureau to
> carry out a check on the background of a new partner or boyfriend, as
> part of the drive to tackle the paedophiles who prey on mothers living
> alone with their children. Pilot schemes in three areas giving single
> women the right to ask for checks are to begin next month."
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1637444.ece
>
> In the comments section Bruce Haig asks a pertinent question:
> "Can I ask for just such a check on my ex-wife's new flames, to
> protect my young daughter who lives with her?"
>
on my new partner or girlfriend to protect my children?
> He says he doesn't need three guesses to answer that one.
But did he actually ask the question? I've found that trying to
outguess the government is a risky proposition.
>
> The new proposal cannot, therefore, really be about child protection -
> as at least testing an equivalent provision for the natural father in
> some of the pilot areas would be an obvious variant, and probably one
> of the most effective child protection measures available.
>
> So what is it really about, then?
>
Mark Borgerson
Rob
> In article <1176886905.429190.216...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> robwil...@yahoo.co.uk says...> The following is from an article on making information about sex
> > offenders public in the UK:
>
> > "Single mothers will be able to ask for the Criminal Records Bureau to
> > carry out a check on the background of a new partner or boyfriend, as
> > part of the drive to tackle the paedophiles who prey on mothers living
> > alone with their children. Pilot schemes in three areas giving single
> > women the right to ask for checks are to begin next month."
> >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1637444.ece
>
> > In the comments section Bruce Haig asks a pertinent question:
> > "Can I ask for just such a check on my ex-wife's new flames, to
> > protect my young daughter who lives with her?"
>
> Another pertinent question would be: Can I ask for just such a check
> on my new partner or girlfriend to protect my children?
There's no law to protect children from emotional abuse.
> > He says he doesn't need three guesses to answer that one.
>
> But did he actually ask the question? I've found that trying to
> outguess the government is a risky proposition.
When has your government suprised you by offering genuinely equal
protection to men?
Mark Borgerson
robw...@yahoo.co.uk says...
I don't remember any surprises, but then, since I expect equal
protection, when it happens, it isn't much of a surprise.
The first example I can think of in the area of equal protection
is voting rights. There are lots of other areas where protection
is equal---just as there are some where men do not receive equal
protection, such as child custody.
Mark Borgerson
Rob
> In article <1177404050.031028.249...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> robwil...@yahoo.co.uk says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 18 Apr, 22:46, Mark Borgerson <mborger...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > In article <1176886905.429190.216...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > > robwil...@yahoo.co.uk says...> The following is from an article on making information about sex
> > > > offenders public in the UK:
>
> > > > "Single mothers will be able to ask for the Criminal Records Bureau to
> > > > carry out a check on the background of a new partner or boyfriend, as
> > > > part of the drive to tackle the paedophiles who prey on mothers living
> > > > alone with their children. Pilot schemes in three areas giving single
> > > > women the right to ask for checks are to begin next month."
> > > >http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article1637444.ece
>
> > > > In the comments section Bruce Haig asks a pertinent question:
> > > > "Can I ask for just such a check on my ex-wife's new flames, to
> > > > protect my young daughter who lives with her?"
>
> > > Another pertinent question would be: Can I ask for just such a check
> > > on my new partner or girlfriend to protect my children?
>
> > There's no law to protect children from emotional abuse.
>
> > > > He says he doesn't need three guesses to answer that one.
>
> > > But did he actually ask the question? I've found that trying to
> > > outguess the government is a risky proposition.
>
> > When has your government suprised you by offering genuinely equal
> > protection to men?
>
> I don't remember any surprises, but then, since I expect equal
> protection, when it happens, it isn't much of a surprise.
What then, in this context, did you mean by "I've found that trying to
outguess the government is a risky proposition"?
> The first example I can think of in the area of equal protection
> is voting rights. There are lots of other areas where protection
> is equal---just as there are some where men do not receive equal
> protection, such as child custody.
Do you believe voting rights were introduced mainly to protect the
people who vote?
Mark Borgerson
robw...@yahoo.co.uk says...
I think that was a reaction to income tax time. Trying to outguess the
government (IRS) on what may and may not be deductible is to risk
an audit. As a result, I'm very conservative in that and other
relations with the government. If you have a question about the
way the government will interpret a law or regulation, it is best
to avoid guessing about their intent. Either ask, and get a definitive
answer, or assume that the government will interpret the law as
written. In this context, if the law appears to be gender-neutral,
assume that it is so until you have definitive statement to the
contrary.
>
> > The first example I can think of in the area of equal protection
> > is voting rights. There are lots of other areas where protection
> > is equal---just as there are some where men do not receive equal
> > protection, such as child custody.
>
> Do you believe voting rights were introduced mainly to protect the
> people who vote?
No, they were introduced to protect the rights of people who weren't
able to vote.
Sorry about the delay. The moderation queue is getting filled (200+
messages) with spam from Germany and Japan. ;-(
Mark Borgerson
Rob
> In article <1177578137.830600.49...@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> robwil...@yahoo.co.uk says...
<Attempting to post again...>
The question was about genuine equal protection for men, not a
government's inclination to interpret tax law in its own favour.
For this, there needs to be evidence of a government striving towards,
for example:
- Prohibition of all non-consensual circumcision.
- 50/50 physical child custody.
- Paternal certainty.
- Equalised employment conditions.
- Equalised employment death rates.
- Equalised longevity.
- Equalised (non)incarceration rates and terms.
- Common approach to conscription.
- Equalised (non)homelessness.
- Equalised discretionary spending.
- Equal life options including, e.g., to raise a family alone.
- Equalised (non)victimisation by violence.
- Equalisation of abuse recognition between physical and emotional
types.
- Equalised educational styles.
- Equalised (non)suicide rates.
- Equalised dress freedom.
- Equal measurement of quality of life standards.
> > > The first example I can think of in the area of equal protection
> > > is voting rights. There are lots of other areas where protection
> > > is equal---just as there are some where men do not receive equal
> > > protection, such as child custody.
>
> > Do you believe voting rights were introduced mainly to protect the
> > people who vote?
>
> No, they were introduced to protect the rights of people who weren't
> able to vote.
Perhaps the delay has confused one of us. Can you help me understand
what you are saying in this exchange:
Q. When has your government surprised you by offering genuinely equal
protection to men?
A. The first example I can think of in the area of equal protection is
voting rights
Q. Do you believe voting rights were introduced mainly to protect the
people who vote?
A. No, they were introduced to protect the rights of people who
weren't able to vote.
--
Mark Borgerson
robw...@yahoo.co.uk says...
The answer to this was NOT what you have below. The answer was: I'm
not generally surprised when the government offers equal protection,
since I expect that to be the case.
> A. The first example I can think of in the area of equal protection is
> voting rights
I think this answer was in response to a request for an example where
men were given equal protection.
> Q. Do you believe voting rights were introduced mainly to protect the
> people who vote?
I'm not sure that what I believe about voting rights has much to
do with the original thread, but I answered it anyway.
> A. No, they were introduced to protect the rights of people who
> weren't able to vote.
>
Mark Borgerson
Rob
>
> > Perhaps the delay has confused one of us. Can you help me understand
> > what you are saying in this exchange:
> > Q. When has your government surprised you by offering genuinely equal
> > protection to men?
>
> The answer to this was NOT what you have below. The answer was: I'm
> not generally surprised when the government offers equal protection,
> since I expect that to be the case.
Yet the government does not offer equal protection in the long list of
things a few paragraphs above. Is your expectation reasonable?
Mark Borgerson
robw...@yahoo.co.uk says...
Sure they're reasonable expectations. After all, your list is only
a small fraction of the services offered by government. In fact,
several of the items on the list could not be achieved without
drastically infringing on the existing rights of men.
For instance: "Son, I'm afraid you won't be able to become a
coal miner like me. After all, there are only about 100 new
hires every year, and those spots are all reserved for women.
Your best bet is probably to get a job in housekeeping at the
Super 8 Motel."
Your call for a common approach to conscription has been widely
debated on soc.men. The consensus there seems to be that
women are unsuited for military service.
As for equalized dress freedom, I am all in favor of not requiring
women to be clothed above the waist at the beach! ;-)
Mark Borgerson
Rob
> In article <1178700410.859596.14...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>,
> ...
The list covers most of the important issues. It is a common tactic
amongst governments to confuse their populace with irrelevant
'services'.
Seems like it works, too.
Mark Borgerson
robw...@yahoo.co.uk says...
Here in the Western USA, where the federal government owns more than
70% of the land, issues surrounding government control of land and
resources are more important than some of the issues that you list.
Provision of, and control of infrastructure (Power, highways, water,
etc.) are also more important to many people than are the issues
that you listed.
> It is a common tactic
> amongst governments to confuse their populace with irrelevant
> 'services'.
> Seems like it works, too.
It's also a common tactic for persons dissatisfied with some
aspect of goverment to assume that their issues are the most
important to all of the populace.
Mark Borgerson
Rob
> In article <1178800157.797866.260...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> robwil...@yahoo.co.uk says...
<Attempting to post again. I'm struggling to remember a time when my
first post actually made it through. I don't plan to keep reposting
stuff forever so the below may be my last post here...>
The good 'ole USA, the land of "Power, highways and the pursuit of
land control".
Or was that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Dang... they're just so hard to tell apart!