Taking my ex to court

CurlySue2017

unholyangel wrote: »

You know, I keep seeing posters saying or hinting that the board is biased towards women. But your post shows the opposite is true.

Read the replies - OP was told she can't expect him to fund her lifestyle, that she should work more hours, claim for benefits, move area etc.

Or are you really suggesting that a man would have been told to take her for every penny, that she should fund his lifestyle, that he should work less hours etc?

Maybe not this particular thread, but in general on this site, it is very much true.

I have read all of the replies and was simply responding to another post.

I can't see any suggestion whatsoever that anyone has suggested taking anyone for anything? Please clarify why you would jump to that conclusion?

Comms69 wrote: »

I think it was more of a: if a man posted saying he didn't want to fund his exes lifestyle, he may get a different response. I don't think that's true at the minute, but sometimes there is a bias.

You are correct.

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

I think it was more of a: if a man posted saying he didn't want to fund his exes lifestyle, he may get a different response. I don't think that's true at the minute, but sometimes there is a bias.

If there is a bias for women/against men, then it would be evident all the time regardless of circumstance. It not being evident all the time indicates its not a bias (or at least not one thats male/female orientated) and that they're tailoring their advice/posts to the situation. You may find however, that there is a bias towards the primary carer and despite all the inroads we've made, its still overwhelmingly women who fulfil that role.

As I said, the fact that poster claims responses would have been different if it had been a man (despite responses not being in OP's favour) shows a bias against women.

CurlySue2017 wrote: »

Maybe not this particular thread, but in general on this site, it is very much true.

I have read all of the replies and was simply responding to another post.

I can't see any suggestion whatsoever that anyone has suggested taking anyone for anything? Please clarify why you would jump to that conclusion?

I didn't say it was suggested to take anyone for anything - it was just an example of advice that would be different to what has been given to the OP.

I don't see how anything you've said changes what you originally said - which was:

The responses would also be very different if this were posted by a man and not a woman, I guarantee it.

It was posted by a woman, she did not receive favourable replies (and some were quite hostile). If you had read the replies, then why say what you said? It makes no sense.

Ignoring situations that don't support your preconceived notions is pretty much dictionary definition of prejudice.

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

If there is a bias for women/against men, then it would be evident all the time regardless of circumstance. It not being evident all the time indicates its not a bias (or at least not one thats male/female orientated) and that they're tailoring their advice/posts to the situation. You may find however, that there is a bias towards the primary carer and despite all the inroads we've made, its still overwhelmingly women who fulfil that role. - well hold on a second. It's a public forum, so the bias only exists when those individuals are online. No-one is talking about the court bias (or atleast I wasn't!)

As I said, the fact that poster claims responses would have been different if it had been a man (despite responses not being in OP's favour) shows a bias against women. - oh please. I think this thread is actually an example of a genderless debate. No-one is giving weight to wither party due to their gender, and simply focusing on the practicalities.


That is not what often happens when men post.



I didn't say it was suggested to take anyone for anything - it was just an example of advice that would be different to what has been given to the OP.

I don't see how anything you've said changes what you originally said - which was:


It was posted by a woman, she did not receive favourable replies (and some were quite hostile). If you had read the replies, then why say what you said? It makes no sense.

Ignoring situations that don't support your preconceived notions is pretty much dictionary definition of prejudice.

No it's not, but I really cant be bothered with arguments over definitions.


I don't agree with identity politics. I will make the same statement regardless of demographic. BUT I can still see when some posts are supportive of a poster or aggressive towards one, simply because of their gender.

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

No it's not, but I really cant be bothered with arguments over definitions.


I don't agree with identity politics. I will make the same statement regardless of demographic. BUT I can still see when some posts are supportive of a poster or aggressive towards one, simply because of their gender.

Then give some examples where the man was the primary carer and the woman's position was given the greater weight despite that.

If the only examples you can give are threads where the woman is the primary carer then I refer you to my previous post about favouring the main carer.

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

Then give some examples where the man was the primary carer and the woman's position was given the greater weight despite that.

If the only examples you can give are threads where the woman is the primary carer then I refer you to my previous post about favouring the main carer.

You realise how many posts there are on this forum?


Often the weight is not regarding children (in fact I think child maintenance is something that has almost a unanimous backing regardless of gender)


it's often more around blame assignment or jumping to conclusions regarding abuse / DV

Sambella

Child maintenance regulations (article 50 I think it is) state that where day to day care is shared equally the payee is no longer considered to be non resident.

A recent upper tribunal ruled on what constitutes non resident.

If you go on nights only then CMS will be paid if one has them 7 nights but the other has them seven days. CMS calculator works on number of nights.

CurlySue2017

unholyangel wrote: »

If there is a bias for women/against men, then it would be evident all the time regardless of circumstance. It not being evident all the time indicates its not a bias (or at least not one thats male/female orientated) and that they're tailoring their advice/posts to the situation. You may find however, that there is a bias towards the primary carer and despite all the inroads we've made, its still overwhelmingly women who fulfil that role.

As I said, the fact that poster claims responses would have been different if it had been a man (despite responses not being in OP's favour) shows a bias against women.



I didn't say it was suggested to take anyone for anything - it was just an example of advice that would be different to what has been given to the OP.

I don't see how anything you've said changes what you originally said - which was:


It was posted by a woman, she did not receive favourable replies (and some were quite hostile). If you had read the replies, then why say what you said? It makes no sense.

Ignoring situations that don't support your preconceived notions is pretty much dictionary definition of prejudice.

I don't want to change what I originally said, why would I? You may not agree with me, but that's your opinion and I am entitled to mine just as you are yours.

Calling me predjudiced based on ONE post that I have made? Really?
I think a dose of your own advice may be in order there.

And the reason that I am not responding in any greater detail is because I have no interest in getting into a tit for tat with you in order to boost your post count, you can find someone else for that.

unholyangel

Comms69 wrote: »

You realise how many posts there are on this forum?


Often the weight is not regarding children (in fact I think child maintenance is something that has almost a unanimous backing regardless of gender)


it's often more around blame assignment or jumping to conclusions regarding abuse / DV

The more posts there are, the easier it should be to find examples of bias in favour of women.

Ah okay so your claims are changing now, like curlysues did. We've went from a man posting saying he didn't want to fund his ex's lifestyle getting different responses to the bias being about blame assignment or abuse.

I have seen maybe once (I lurk a lot more than I post on here) where gender wasn't mentioned and people assume, but I've seen far more threads where male posters are advised their female OH is being abusive to them, should pay her fair share, is being unreasonable etc. And I've seen more yet where posters say "it would be different if a man had posted this" with absolutely no basis other than the poster being female. This thread, a female was basically told to get her finger out instead of putting her hand out and yet it (being different if a man had posted it) was still said!


Anyway, perhaps have to agree to disagree because I don't see the underlying issues and causes being resolved any time soon (if ever).

Comms69

unholyangel wrote: »

The more posts there are, the easier it should be to find examples of bias in favour of women.

Ah okay so your claims are changing now, like curlysues did. We've went from a man posting saying he didn't want to fund his ex's lifestyle getting different responses to the bias being about blame assignment or abuse.

I have seen maybe once (I lurk a lot more than I post on here) where gender wasn't mentioned and people assume, but I've seen far more threads where male posters are advised their female OH is being abusive to them, should pay her fair share, is being unreasonable etc. And I've seen more yet where posters say "it would be different if a man had posted this" with absolutely no basis other than the poster being female. This thread, a female was basically told to get her finger out instead of putting her hand out and yet it (being different if a man had posted it) was still said!


Anyway, perhaps have to agree to disagree because I don't see the underlying issues and causes being resolved any time soon (if ever).

1: not all posts involve disputes between couples
2: my claims never changed, I said I’ve seen bias against men, I never contained it to a specific set of circumstances
3: yes I think that’s best.

unholyangel

CurlySue2017 wrote: »

I don't want to change what I originally said, why would I? You may not agree with me, but that's your opinion and I am entitled to mine just as you are yours.

Calling me predjudiced based on ONE post that I have made? Really?
I think a dose of your own advice may be in order there.

And the reason that I am not responding in any greater detail is because I have no interest in getting into a tit for tat with you in order to boost your post count, you can find someone else for that.

Well why did you try to change that you weren't talking about this thread and were speaking in general (which contradicts what you actually said)? If you had read the replies, why didn't you instead say "i'm surprised at the replies, usually......."

I've been a member here nearly 11 years. The majority (definitely 90%+) of my posts are on the consumer rights board providing advice to OP's. I'm not into tit for tat (as my reply above this one says, quite happy to agree to disagree). When I see inane comments though, it tends to pique my curiosity as to why they think that. I'm sorry you're not confident enough in your views to debate the merit of them.

Also, I haven't called you prejudiced. I said your post was and that ignoring situations that don't fit your preconceived notions is prejudiced.

You're perfectly entitled to respond to anything on these forums (or not) as you see fit - I really don't care either way. But I am equally entitled to respond to anything on these forums - including your posts.