Good news in this case. I haven't followed it closely, and I understand it's probably only a limited victory, but it is certainly a good decision - not just for the man in question and his children, but also for common sense.
I have a problem with a lot of the fathers' rights crowd. Too often their complaints about the Irish legal system descend into rants on feminism - as if the legislators and judges who came up with our family law were all mad women's libbers, rather than ultraconservative Catholics trying to discourage extramarital sex and believing that women should mind the kids, preferably while standing barefoot and pregnant [but only by their husband] in the kitchen.
But the underlying argument - that unmarried fathers in particular are grossly discriminated against in Irish law - is virtually undebatable. Today's decision may be only a small step toward reversing this ridiculous injustice, but it's a welcome one.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
'Fathers rights grouops' actually believe the hype that is generated through political commentary and at times some vitriolic comments some of the so called womens groups make that were absolutely right two decades ago but now are frowned upon by most decent women. The church still has huge influence in this country especially in the running of the state matters and especially with a very good professuional PR always on hand. As for the woman preferably being impregnated by only the husband, the offspring such as chlamidya, gnorrohea and the rest of their siblings and members of the STD and STI families actually stand in favour of a settled family environment. The problem with law is it is four decades behind time and even then the legal practices are extremely prjudicial and biased against the fathers. This is a cold fact stated many times over in overvieew publications of family law from North America to Australasia. Why are politicians reluctant to act despite recommendations fromthe Law Reform Commission and other such bodies. Two Reasons. It provides and extremely good and comfortable living if you are in any way affiliated with the industry of family law and best thing no repurcussions even when the practices are unconconstitutional or in breach of every international convention the state is signatory to. Yesterdays judgement in the High Court relied on a convention which Ireland signed into in 1980. Secondly every politician cossets to womens lobbies in the strict belief backed by figures from the voting habits where almost twice as many women vote. Here I blame the laziness of men for their own downfall. They are very slow learners for all this is a game of Ying and Yan. What goes up must come down. The history teaches us that. Politicians change when the public compels them to change. Right now the only compelling need they have is to stay in power , whatever it takes. In the meantime fathers married or unmarrried have little or no say once they have a family. This is a proven fat time and time again. May they rest in peace.
As for the woman preferably being impregnated by only the husband, the offspring such as chlamidya, gnorrohea and the rest of their siblings and members of the STD and STI families actually stand in favour of a settled family environment.
Well, they're arguments in favour of limiting one's sexual partners, certainly, although you hardly need to be married to do that. My point in raising the extramarital sex thing (I should have said non-marital sex) was that these laws were brought in as a means of encouraging marriage, not because somebody had it in for men.
Hey Wednesday,
Totally off topic but I do like your blog. Nice to see a leftie feminist.
Why thank you Louise. Nice to meet you too.
Couldn't agree more with the middle paragraph. Their own worst enemy springs to mind, and egotistical as well. But I also agree, a proper equality in law is essential.
Really, nice article!
Post a Comment