"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah that’s silly. I don’t want a prostate exam but having prostate exams promotes good health. Likewise seeking help for mental health problems promotes good health. That stands whether you like hearing it or not and whether you personally like talking about feelings it not.

Saying that men should have prostate exams and everyone should do breast checks, isn’t having a pop at them. That really is just your interpretation.

Can't we just stick to what we're actually discussing rather than going off on tangents about prostate exams and breast checks?

You said you didn't understand my attitude, and when I explained the reasons for my attitude to you, you dismissed my reasoning as silly. We're agreed that seeking help for issues with our mental health is a good thing, but where we appear to disagree is on this idea that castigating men who don't want to talk about their feelings, is unhealthy.

I've explained to you the issues I have with castigating men who don't talk about their feelings by some people who identify it as an example of what they call toxic masculinity which they suggest contributes to the issue of male suicide. That doesn't stand, and it deserves to be questioned, because it's doing the opposite of promoting good mental health and suggesting that men not talking about issues that those people want to talk about, is the problem with men, is the reason why men are taking their own lives.

The research just doesn't back up their claims, but they keep pushing that same ideology, like the likes of blindboy boatclub suggesting men should adopt feminism. That's literally the definition of inventing an illness and then selling the cure. It's snakeoil sales tactics. It's similar to the kind of nonsense that Jordan Peterson is promoting with his self-help crap, only that the way he packages his presentations is a lot more slick and appealing than a guy with a plastic bag on his bonce.

Neither of them are actually doing anything to address the issues they claim to have identified, but they have an audience among people who appreciate their particular brand of identifying an illness and selling the cure.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah that’s silly. I don’t want a prostate exam but having prostate exams promotes good health. Likewise seeking help for mental health problems promotes good health. That stands whether you like hearing it or not and whether you personally like talking about feelings it not.

Saying that men should have prostate exams and everyone should do breast checks, isn’t having a pop at them. That really is just your interpretation.

Can't we just stick to what we're actually discussing rather than going off on tangents about prostate exams and breast checks?

You said you didn't understand my attitude, and when I explained the reasons for my attitude to you, you dismissed my reasoning as silly. We're agreed that seeking help for issues with our mental health is a good thing, but where we appear to disagree is on this idea that castigating men who don't want to talk about their feelings, is unhealthy.

I've explained to you the issues I have with castigating men who don't talk about their feelings by some people who identify it as an example of what they call toxic masculinity which they suggest contributes to the issue of male suicide. That doesn't stand, and it deserves to be questioned, because it's doing the opposite of promoting good mental health and suggesting that men not talking about issues that those people want to talk about, is the problem with men, is the reason why men are taking their own lives.

The research just doesn't back up their claims, but they keep pushing that same ideology, like the likes of blindboy boatclub suggesting men should adopt feminism. That's literally the definition of inventing an illness and then selling the cure. It's snakeoil sales tactics. It's similar to the kind of nonsense that Jordan Peterson is promoting with his self-help crap, only that the way he packages his presentations is a lot more slick and appealing than a guy with a plastic bag on his bonce.

Neither of them are actually doing anything to address the issues they claim to have identified, but they have an audience among people who appreciate their particular brand of identifying an illness and selling the cure.

I disagree that promoting men seeking help for mental health is castigating them in the same way that I disagree that promoting men getting prostate exams is castigating men or promoting breast exams castigated people.

You’re creating a special category for men and mental health. I don’t know why you consider that castigation and not prostate checks or breast checks.

Promoting prostate are checks isn’t toxic masculinity. Men’s relative reluctance to seek medical help might actually lead to greater harm.

I can’t feel sorry for encouraging men to speak about problems or seek medical help.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I disagree that promoting men seeking help for mental health is castigating them in the same way that I disagree that promoting men getting prostate exams is castigating men or promoting breast exams castigated people.

You’re creating a special category for men and mental health. I don’t know why you consider that castigation and not prostate checks or breast checks.

Promoting prostate are checks isn’t toxic masculinity. Men’s relative reluctance to seek medical help might actually lead to greater harm.

I can’t feel sorry for encouraging men to speak about problems or seek medical help.

You're missing my point. I'm saying that this idea that "men don't talk about their feelings is contributing to the rising suicide rate among men and is an example of toxic masculinity", is basically misdiagnosing a problem, and presenting a cure for their misdiagnosis of the actual problem.

It's not me who's inventing any special categories at all. It's people selling a cure who have categorised people who have no interest in what they're selling, as contributing to the problems of the people they're selling a cure to!

Rather than actually addressing the underlying issues which lead to men taking their own lives, these people have invented a diagnosis for which they claim that the particular ideology they're peddling is the cure.

H3llR4iser

FishOnABike wrote: »

There's been social experiments done on this featuring a male and female in a public place e.g. street or park with one behaving angrily and abusively towards the other (shouting and either pushing or pulling by the arm)

When the abuser was female and the abused male it was largely either ignored or looked on at with bemusement. When the abuser was male and the abused female there was, almost without exception, a rapid response from bystanders to intervene.[cut]

Nothing new under the sun - you don't even need a purpose made experiment. A few years ago I was in the cinema, went to watch "The Wolf of Wall Street". You know the "big fight" scene? Margot Robbie's character throws just about anything at Di Caprio's, hits him multiple times, everyone "ahahah", "ohohohoh". He hits her back - "ooooooh", "my god!".

The reality is that deep down inside the vast majority of people, there's an inherent form of sexism that makes them think that women can do "no harm", as in they are incapable of doing so. What shows up as lack of "sympathy" towards men, most likely starts with a really weird concept of women - that they are angelic, delicate creatures that are physically weak and mentally pliable; How often do we hear a woman's misbehaviour justified with "she's been driven to it"?

Sure, we can talk about the unfair parallel expectation for men to be strong, burly and sturdy, but the two things are way more intertwined than it seems.

Sponge25 wrote: »

Any man that doesn't help a girl in need is a coward. Same applies if anyone needs help but generally kids, woman and the elderly under some kinda attack, i'd be straight in with the right hook. :cool:

Hold on the hook Rocky, it's never a good idea to jump headlong into a situation you know nothing about...looks are often deceiving. That said...I can't help but imagine this situation where two of the categories above are attacking each other, and you go in putting hay-makers on 4 years old and old dears :D:D

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're missing my point. I'm saying that this idea that "men don't talk about their feelings is contributing to the rising suicide rate among men and is an example of toxic masculinity", is basically misdiagnosing a problem, and presenting a cure for their misdiagnosis of the actual problem.

It's not me who's inventing any special categories at all. It's people selling a cure who have categorised people who have no interest in what they're selling, as contributing to the problems of the people they're selling a cure to!

Rather than actually addressing the underlying issues which lead to men taking their own lives, these people have invented a diagnosis for which they claim that the particular ideology they're peddling is the cure.

I think it’s fairly well established that men are relatively less likely to seek medical help or discuss medical problems. I understand this holds for physical and mental health. And I understand that seeking medical help promotes good health.

I can’t understand any opposition to either pointing out a problem of men’s reluctance to seek medical help, or encouraging men to seek medical help.

You keep using the term ‘toxic masculinity’. It’s not a term
I would use. But there are some elements that cause men to have less good health outcomes. If you call them toxic masculinity, then that’s up to you I suppose.

Maxpfizer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can’t understand any opposition to either pointing out a problem of men’s reluctance to seek medical help, or encouraging men to seek medical help.

Well maybe I can help you understand it.

When someone says "it's a problem" regarding something that is an OBVIOUS problem them people are necessarily opposed to the pointing out of the problem but are annoyed at the shallow and lazy, and basically unhelpful, approach of repeatedly saying "it's a problem, it's a problem, it's a problem" while simultaneously having no f*cking solutions.

Further to that sometimes you do have a person coming along with a proposed solution to said problem and that solution is based on such utter BS that it enrages people even more than the "pointing at the obvious problem" crowd.

The point you are missing is that identifying a problem, misdiagnosing it and then coming up with an ineffectual solution is NOT the same as "just pointing out the problem and encouraging people to do better".

Here are your problems:

You are repeatedly pointing out bad things and problems etc but all you are doing is pointing to them.

The people you are engaging in conversation have moved beyond that. They KNOW that stuff is bad and they are asking "how can it be made better".

You misrepresent the people mentioned above as "opposing pointing out a problem" when really they are discussing how to handle the problem appropriately.

The people you are engaging with see this as you derailing the conversation because every time they get into a deeper look at the problem you are butting in to say "there's a problem over here and over there and look at this problem, look I am just pointing out problems".

So they have to go round in circles with you all day (if they don't just block you or mute you or whatever) instead of getting to talk about the issues.

It's not "opposition to either pointing out a problem of men’s reluctance to seek medical help, or encouraging men to seek medical help". It's opposition to you sandbagging the entire conversation and slowing everything to a crawl with pedantic, irrelevant, bullsh!t.

Allow me to "just point out a problem". You are EASILY one of the worst and least insightful posters on this part of Boards. You derail and sidetrack almost every conversation. Please consider not doing that anymore.

El_Duderino 09

Maxpfizer wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can’t understand any opposition to either pointing out a problem of men’s reluctance to seek medical help, or encouraging men to seek medical help.

Well maybe I can help you understand it.

When someone says "it's a problem" regarding something that is an OBVIOUS problem them people are necessarily opposed to the pointing out of the problem but are annoyed at the shallow and lazy, and basically unhelpful, approach of repeatedly saying "it's a problem, it's a problem, it's a problem" while simultaneously having no f*cking solutions.

Further to that sometimes you do have a person coming along with a proposed solution to said problem and that solution is based on such utter BS that it enrages people even more than the "pointing at the obvious problem" crowd.

The point you are missing is that identifying a problem, misdiagnosing it and then coming up with an ineffectual solution is NOT the same as "just pointing out the problem and encouraging people to do better".

Here are your problems:

You are repeatedly pointing out bad things and problems etc but all you are doing is pointing to them.

The people you are engaging in conversation have moved beyond that. They KNOW that stuff is bad and they are asking "how can it be made better".

You misrepresent the people mentioned above as "opposing pointing out a problem" when really they are discussing how to handle the problem appropriately.

The people you are engaging with see this as you derailing the conversation because every time they get into a deeper look at the problem you are butting in to say "there's a problem over here and over there and look at this problem, look I am just pointing out problems".

So they have to go round in circles with you all day (if they don't just block you or mute you or whatever) instead of getting to talk about the issues.

It's not "opposition to either pointing out a problem of men’s reluctance to seek medical help, or encouraging men to seek medical help". It's opposition to you sandbagging the entire conversation and slowing everything to a crawl with pedantic, irrelevant, bullsh!t.

Allow me to "just point out a problem". You are EASILY one of the worst and least insightful posters on this part of Boards. You derail and sidetrack almost every conversation. Please consider not doing that anymore.

Leaving aside the personal insult.

The problem is that men are relatively less likely to seek medical help. The solution is to normalise men seeking medical help through all the normal channels. But somehow that is seen as ‘castigating’ men. I disagree that it’s castigation. It’s pointing out a problem and a solution.

It can hardly be any more simple than that

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You keep using the term ‘toxic masculinity’. It’s not a term
I would use. But there are some elements that cause men to have less good health outcomes. If you call them toxic masculinity, then that’s up to you I suppose.

Some females (more than males) don't eat enough or vomit up their food. This could be influenced by societal and media messages about how women should look but doesn't get labelled "toxic femininity".

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You keep using the term ‘toxic masculinity’. It’s not a term
I would use. But there are some elements that cause men to have less good health outcomes. If you call them toxic masculinity, then that’s up to you I suppose.

Some females (more than males) don't eat enough or vomit up their food. This could be influenced by societal and media messages about how women should look but doesn't get labelled "toxic femininity".

Given that I just said I don’t use the term toxic masculinity, why are you asking if I’d use the term toxic femininity?

Just for clarity, I don’t use the term toxic femininity either. So no is the answer. I acknowledge that some eating disorders primarily affect women which lead to less good health outcomes. and I support efforts to help those people. Is that castigating women?

Would you call it toxic femininity?

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Some females (more than males) don't eat enough or vomit up their food. This could be influenced by societal and media messages about how women should look but doesn't get labelled "toxic femininity".

Given that I just said I don’t use the term toxic masculinity, why are you asking if I’d use the term toxic femininity?

Just for clarity, I don’t use the term toxic femininity either. So no is the answer. I acknowledge that some eating disorders primarily affect women which lead to less good health outcomes. and I support efforts to help those people. Is that castigating women?

Would you call it toxic femininity?

If "toxic masculinity" is going to be used, I would use "toxic femininity" here. However the fact that "toxic femininity" isn't used, suggests that "toxic masculinity" is a loaded phrase and so I wouldn't use it.

Another example is when "toxic masculinity" is used regarding MacBeth (the man) but "toxic femininity" is not used regarding Lady Macbeth and it has even been said is not to exist in this context.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know. It would probably take years of lobbying and campaigning to get something like that setup. You don't tend to see much activism for men's issues. The feminists are on the ball with lobbying and campaigning. It would be great to see more men's rights lobbying and in time, there would be results like the a men's DV shelter.

These things don't just come about out of nothing. The government doesn't just phone up and ask if you want money for a DV shelter. Further to that if you lobby for funds for a women's DV shelter and are successful, the government won't just give you the money for an equivalent men's shelter.

Definitely around access to children and parental rights in general there is a huge inequality that needs to be addressed. I'm in a happy stable marriage but if I wasn't I would be in there campaigning. As it stands I have precious little time for that kind of thing.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

If "toxic masculinity" is going to be used, I would use "toxic femininity" here. However the fact that "toxic femininity" isn't used, suggests that "toxic masculinity" is a loaded phrase and so I wouldn't use it.

Another example is when "toxic masculinity" is used regarding MacBeth (the man) but "toxic femininity" is not used regarding Lady Macbeth and it has even been said is not to exist in this context.

You could coin the phrase. Like I say, it’s up to you to use it or not. I don’t think it’s a useful phrase and I don’t use it.

There are some traits or illnesses that primarily affect men and women and lead to negative health outcomes. The posters above think pointing that out amounts to castigating men.

Though they haven’t commented on whether the opposite applies such as pointing out eating disorders that primarily affect women. Did you castigate women by pointing out that anorexia and bulimia primarily affect women? I’d argue that you didn’t, same as the example of men seeking medical help.

gizmo555

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Allow me to "just point out a problem". You are EASILY one of the worst and least insightful posters on this part of Boards. You derail and sidetrack almost every conversation. Please consider not doing that anymore.

Long since put this guy on my ignore list - consider doing likewise

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Sponge25 wrote: »

Any man that doesn't help a girl in need is a coward. Same applies if anyone needs help but generally kids, woman and the elderly under some kinda attack, i'd be straight in with the right hook. :cool:

Aren't you the hard lad... :rolleyes: Labeling people a coward is somewhat ironic. If a disabled man didn't help, would he be a coward? What if a woman wouldn't helped, does she get a pass? You're very wrong here.

Pat Mustard

As this thread is entitled the "Man Up" campaign, I thought I'd bring it around to its original topic, in case anybody else has become tired of hearing about cleaning rooms all the time.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/women-s-council-calls-for-review-of-femicides-1.3504760
In an Irish Times article following the murders of Jastine Valdez and Ana Kriegel, the National Women's Council has called for a review of femicides.

This phrase does not show up in every dictionary but it relates to the murder of women. There seem to be varying definitions.

In the overall context of murder (not just women), the murder rate in Ireland is quite low, on a global scale. According to UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), the homicide rate seems to be about 1 per 100,000 of population or thereabouts, nationally. (See Figure 8.4 of the report in the link). http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

Turning back to the same Irish Times article linked earlier, Ian Power of spunout.ie has called for men to be educated. Speaking about reaction to the Belfast rape trial, he said:

You could see men responding in a threatened way, in a way that they feel under scrutiny and being blamed. We need to talk about how women are the victims in this debate, not men.

This is another way of saying that innocent men are responsible for the actions of others. I thought it relevant to this thread.

tritium

Pat Mustard wrote: »

As this thread is entitled the "Man Up" campaign, I thought I'd bring it around to its original topic, in case anybody else has become tired of hearing about cleaning rooms all the time.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/women-s-council-calls-for-review-of-femicides-1.3504760
In an Irish Times article following the murders of Jastine Valdez and Anna Kriegel, the National Women's Council has called for a review of femicides.

This phrase does not show up in every dictionary but it relates to the murder of women. There seem to be varying definitions.

In the overall context of murder (not just women), the murder rate in Ireland is quite low, on a global scale. According to UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime), the homicide rate seems to be about 1 per 100,000 of population or thereabouts, nationally. (See Figure 8.4 of the report in the link). http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf

Turning back to the same Irish Times article linked earlier, Ian Power of spunout.ie has called for men to be educated. Speaking about reaction to the Belfast rape trial, he said:


This is another way of saying that innocent men are responsible for the crimes of others. I thought it relevant to this thread.

It’s worse than that. There was no “crime” committed in that case. Whatever about the behavior of all parties that night it’s worrying why someone would think it’s men with the problem or who reacted badly given what happened post acquittal

fly_agaric

National Women's Council ....spunout.ie has called for men to be educated...

Hmm, wonder what groups will get to run all the incoming special classes for boys to teach them the life-skill of how not to be a rapist or murderer of women when they grow up (men are probably a bit too "stuck in their evil ways" for this type of education). Who are the experts in the field?

I hear the lovely sound of snouts grunting around in the taxpayer trough!

Calhoun

Who is Ian Power and why is he to be taken seriously?

A Pint of Goo

Calhoun wrote: »

Who is Ian Power and why is he to be taken seriously?

More importantly, how much is he getting paid?

The collective gender guilt types can go to hell.

The Bishop Basher

tritium wrote: »

It’s worse than that. There was no “crime” committed in that case. Whatever about the behavior of all parties that night it’s worrying why someone would think it’s men with the problem or who reacted badly given what happened post acquittal

This has been overlooked in every single debate I’ve seen on this issue.

Likewise with the case for which Hook lost his job. Again there was no rape. Just an allegation.

These facts are absolutely critical to any discussion yet consistently ignored.

It’s worrying how misguided and biased these conversations have become without is even realizing it.

Pat Mustard

Spunout appears to be partly funded by the HSE and Pobal, a government quango.

Link

Funders

Our main funders in 2016 were the Health Service Executive, the Community Foundation for Ireland, and Pobal.
The Health Service Executive has funded the work of SpunOut.ie with a Section 39 grant every year since our foundation in 2004. In 2016 this grant totalled €190,000.

Calhoun

That would be a concern then if a government supported site is being used to attack parts of society. How is it they were exempt from picking a side on the referendum?

I though all organizations that received government funding were to be non political, or is it only charities.

Pat Mustard

Many of these interest groups that do not support any aspect of private industry are funded by public monies; the National Womens' Council, Pavee Point, etc.

Calhoun

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Many of these interest groups that do not support any aspect of private industry are funded by public monies; the National Womens' Council, Pavee Point, etc.

At a glance from what i can see with spunout, it looks like just an informative website. The only thing i think they are doing that is visible and possibly breaches charity guidelines is the support for the yes side.

Other than the opinion of the founder is there clear examples on the website?

Pat Mustard

Calhoun wrote: »

At a glance from what i can see with spunout, it looks like just an informative website. The only thing i think they are doing that is visible and possibly breaches charity guidelines is the support for the yes side.

I wasn't trying to suggest that there was any unlawful use of public funds. And as far as I know and subject to correction, they could have supported one side or other of the referendum campaign, provided that they did not use public funds to do so.

Calhoun

Pat Mustard wrote: »

I wasn't trying to suggest that there was any unlawful use of public funds. And as far as I know and subject to correction, they could have supported one side or other of the referendum campaign, provided that they did not use public funds to do so.

Sorry i am not trying to suggest that you were, i was more asking a question about them and why they are a concern.

From what i read on the guide lines this is correct as long as they didnt use public funds they were fine and they even have a page dedicated to this.

Pat Mustard

I think that I see what you mean.

I'm not a fan of government quangos, in general. I think that they take whatever money comes their way and it disappears into a black hole.

If the staff from these quangos are agitating for fifty per cent of the population to be made responsible for the crimes or misdeeds of others, I'm against that too. I would question whether public funds should be spent in that way.

Calhoun

Well really what I was getting at is that the site actually looks like what it says on the tin. I was also impressed with the transparency I could see from how funds are used ect.

I didn't really see evidence that they were advocating for the men being abusers piece which is why I was wondering did I miss anything.

I do agree with you on the spending of public funds though.

Pat Mustard

In the context of the aftermath of the Belfast rape trial and the safety of women, this chap espoused the education of men as a solution. That wasn't appropriate at all.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

This thread has moved off topic, from discussion of the Man Up Campaign to a distinctly different comparison/contrast of activism versus discussion/proselytism.

A new thread has now been opened for the discussion of activism versus discussion, here.