Manliness/Masculinity

Wibbs

RayM wrote: »

It's quite possible that gender quotas will result in government composition being a bit more of a meritocracy

The thing is for me Ray, putting the word quota and meritocracy in the same sentence is a glaring contradiction.

Czarcasm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I really really don't get that at all

Firstly - I asked "why do you feel so strongly against Men who might not display stereotypical masculine or macho traits?" - I dont see what that has to do with women crying

It was the best example I could think of that some men (and women who find the behaviour of these men attractive) use as a justification for getting emotional at the slightest incident. "Being in touch with their feminine side" is an apparent justification for their inability to show some emotional restraint. It's an insult to women I know anyway who don't behave like a good cry solves a multitude. They would address the issue they are having, not sit down and cry about it.

Secondly - I dont get why you assume that all men who might be doing something not stereotypically masculine or macho are going through an identity crisis

Really? For all your education and your knowledge and your high minded high horsery and you still don't get why human beings behave like human beings? I don't know what stereotype you have in mind when you talk about masculine or macho stereotypes because I don't make assumptions about people. These men aren't long letting you know that you're the one with the problem, a bit like what you're trying to do right now.

I'm not passing comment on every man I see wearing testicle restrictors, I don't particularly care as it makes no odds to my life. I'm simply saying that I have no interest in taking such men seriously when they're not going to take themselves seriously. They can dress like bo-bo the clown and do cartwheels down O' Connell street for all I care.

If men want to behave the way they think women behave, by being overtly camp and punctuating their speech with a ridiculously dramatic tone in an attempt to sound interesting, I would call that an identity crisis, because not only are they playing up to a stereotype of the way they think women behave, but they appear to reject any form of behaviour they see as stereotypically masculine (their impression of masculine stereotypes that is!).

Thirdly - So what if they are having an identity crisis? Whats the issue that you cant respect people going through an identity crisis?

I said they behave like they're having some sort of identity crisis. I have the utmost empathy for anyone experiencing mental health difficulties (I like the way you tried to spin that though!), but there's a difference between someone experiencing mental health difficulties, and a man who is just a head melt. I'm all for diversity and all, but my level of tolerance is flexible, depending on whether I'm prepared to tolerate someone who is genuine, and someone who is acting like a twat. I can respect the former, the latter however - not so much, nor should I have to.

If someone else wants to entertain such nonsense and call themselves tolerant, good for them, but I see no reason why I should tolerate such behaviour.

Rough Sleeper

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not passing comment on every man I see wearing testicle restrictors, I don't particularly care as it makes no odds to my life. I'm simply saying that I have no interest in taking such men seriously when they're not going to take themselves seriously.

Read that back to yourself there and see if sounds like you're passing comment or not.

By the by I can't understand this notion that skinny jeans are necessarily effeminate. Tight pants have been in and out of fashion since the times of yore. Tudorian and Georgian clothes spring immediately to mind. In more recent years they've been associated with the likes of 70s punk culture and have actually begun to replace baggy pants with recent hip hop artists - two scenes associated with extreme machismo as much as anything.

And FWIW most skinny jeans have pouches around the crotch to accommodate one's testicles. Other really tight ones are made of very elastic material and are no more restrictive than boxers shorts. These spray-on variety seem to have largely replaced the genuine ball-crushers that were around a few years back.

RayM

Wibbs wrote: »

The thing is for me Ray, putting the word quota and meritocracy in the same sentence is a glaring contradiction.

Well, that assumes that our current system is a meritocracy - or indeed that, given the natural arbitrariness of the democratic system, it's actually possible to have one. Gender quotas won't result in great men being dropped from the party ticket. More women in politics, from the grassroots up, would undeniably result in female ministers being more likely to be chosen on grounds other than their gender - simply because there would be a larger pool to choose from.

Although having said all that, I think gender quotas should apply to local, rather than general elections. A lack of female Dáil candidates is a symptom of problems further down the political ladder.

dd972

If your're talking about being a ''Hard man'' OP, there's a scale with a b****** end and a business end.

B****** End : Thuggery, swagger, bullying, loud mouthed attitude and personality, picking on smaller, weaker and younger people, safety in numbers, picking and choosing who you try to intimidate, being nasty to women and kids.

Business End : Special Forces soldiers, Elite Martial Artists, Professional Boxers, pretty much all of whom could leave you needing to drink your food out of a straw for six months but ironically pretty much most of them are affable, friendly, socially skilled and responsible people.

Rough Sleeper

There are also "hard men" who, as well as being *****, are genuinely hard, and don't need to be in groups to start a row. Some people are just rough as ****.

Annasopra

I'm not having a go at you here - just trying to understand your viewpoint more.

Czarcasm wrote: »

It was the best example I could think of that some men (and women who find the behaviour of these men attractive) use as a justification for getting emotional at the slightest incident. "Being in touch with their feminine side" is an apparent justification for their inability to show some emotional restraint. It's an insult to women I know anyway who don't behave like a good cry solves a multitude. They would address the issue they are having, not sit down and cry about it.

Whats wrong with being emotional?

Czarcasm wrote: »

Really? For all your education and your knowledge and your high minded high horsery and you still don't get why human beings behave like human beings? I don't know what stereotype you have in mind when you talk about masculine or macho stereotypes because I don't make assumptions about people.

huh? you are assuming men who cry are acting, you are assuming men who wear skinny jeans and men who act in an effeminate way are going through an identity crisis

Czarcasm wrote: »

These men aren't long letting you know that you're the one with the problem, a bit like what you're trying to do right now.

I'm not passing comment on every man I see wearing testicle restrictors, I don't particularly care as it makes no odds to my life. I'm simply saying that I have no interest in taking such men seriously when they're not going to take themselves seriously. They can dress like bo-bo the clown and do cartwheels down O' Connell street for all I care.

So you're passing comment on some of them and your comment is that in your worldview they cannot be taken seriously. Ok fair enough.

Czarcasm wrote: »

If men want to behave the way they think women behave, by being overtly camp and punctuating their speech with a ridiculously dramatic tone in an attempt to sound interesting, I would call that an identity crisis, because not only are they playing up to a stereotype of the way they think women behave, but they appear to reject any form of behaviour they see as stereotypically masculine (their impression of masculine stereotypes that is!).

There's lots of things here; assumptions that behaviour is affected and put on, judgement, an attempt to box people off as having identity crises

Czarcasm wrote: »

I said they behave like they're having some sort of identity crisis. I have the utmost empathy for anyone experiencing mental health difficulties (I like the way you tried to spin that though!), but there's a difference between someone experiencing mental health difficulties, and a man who is just a head melt. I'm all for diversity and all, but my level of tolerance is flexible, depending on whether I'm prepared to tolerate someone who is genuine, and someone who is acting like a twat. I can respect the former, the latter however - not so much, nor should I have to.

If someone else wants to entertain such nonsense and call themselves tolerant, good for them, but I see no reason why I should tolerate such behaviour.

Fair enough - you find overtly camp men annoying. I'm trying to understand that a bit more though. And I'm not judging you at all here. I actually understand it and I can often overly behaviour annoying myself. But I wonder why this happens a lot. I mean what is so bad about campness? Why is campness often said to be an act and affected? Why is there often a need to police camp behaviour?

Friend Computer

Just to be clear, Czarcasm, do you accept that there are men that behave that way because it is their innate personality? Or is this just another "boy, I sure hate those camp queers" thread in a different guise?

dd972

Camp, Lippy wearing, High Heels, Long Hair, Skinny Jeans yet I'd sure as f**k wouldn't want to get into a row with Twisted Sister or the New York Dolls back in the day. :pac:

Czarcasm

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

Read that back to yourself there and see if sounds like you're passing comment or not.

I'm not passing comment on ALL men who wear testicle restrictors though. I'd need more information before I could ultimately discern whether a stranger I've just met is a twat, but on balance I can only speak from my own experience when I say that of the number of men I've met who turned out to be twats, restrictive clothing did and does seem to be a common trait. Of course men in well fitted clothing can be twats too, but they're not usually so extrovert about it so don't get on my wick as quickly as the scrotum stranglers.

By the by I can't understand this notion that skinny jeans are necessarily effeminate. Tight pants have been in and out of fashion since the times of yore. Tudorian and Georgian clothes spring immediately to mind. In more recent years they've been associated with the likes of 70s punk culture and have actually begun to replace baggy pants with recent hip hop artists - two scenes associated with extreme machismo as much as anything.

We're neither living in Tudorian nor Georgian times now though, not to mention I think you've missed the point of glam rock in the 70's, sure as hell wasn't punk culture, and even at that most men were still wearing bell bottoms and flares. I trust you've seen John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever?

If you're suggesting hip-hop culture is in any respect a reflection of masculine behaviour that men should aspire to, I'd suggest you might need to go again.

And FWIW most skinny jeans have pouches around the crotch to accommodate one's testicles. Other really tight ones are made of very elastic material and are no more restrictive than boxers shorts. These spray-on variety seem to have largely replaced the genuine ball-crushers that were around a few years back.

Clearly I'm not as on-trend and up to date on the latest developments in male fashion as you are. I mean, I appreciate the heads-up, but it's not something I would see myself ever agonising over.

--LOS--

I tend to have more respect for guys that don't care about this BS, I don't really see big differences between men and women except the obvious. I prefer guys that aren't necessarily feminine, but that are more sensitive, more in touch with their emotions and not being afraid to show that. I don't think dressing a certain way makes you masculine or feminine, but instead your attitude. It's more masculine to me if you present yourself how you like without being ashamed of that. That shows a certain strength which is in itself quite manly.

Adamantium

Nature ABHORS equality, but celebrates difference. We're going to be around for 90 years tops, best live close to our natures, any notions of equality will be inevitably washed away, how come every time civilisation has collapsed to an equal level for both genders, it's always the male that creates the comforts of civilisation?

The best thing we can do is hand people their freedom, not quality (just like animals are free)to fail or rise on their own merits, full responsibility, and that hurts for both genders.

The equality war is over, it was 100 years ago, they won and now they have to climb the same mountain that men the world have always had to climb for eons.

That's the double edged sword of freedom, and many women didn't know what they were asking for, because genetically and very way possible, their biology from thousands has been to be docile and care givers.

Women under represnted in politics and other areas? maybe less women than men want to in politics. Enough with the artificial constructs.

I just can't get around the fact we're cavemen and women in suits and honestly we'd be happier, if we dropped the pretensions.

We can aspire of course, but lettuce be real here.

Privileged White Male

I'd like to know more about op's colleague, sounds like your typical feminist.

And in my experience women are far more attracted to dominant masculine men.

FTA69

Privileged White Male wrote: »

I'd like to know more about op's colleague, sounds like your typical feminist.

And in my experience women are far more attracted to dominant masculine men.

She's a prominent feminist commentator who writes for the Guardian. Ironically enough she also likes masculine men.

Czarcasm

Friend Computer wrote: »

Just to be clear, Czarcasm, do you accept that there are men that behave that way because it is their innate personality?

No FC I don't, because having taken the time to take them aside for five minutes on their own, I wasn't long discovering that not just the majority, but in every single instance, their extrovert behaviour was a mask for their innate personality. I really cannot abide by people who put on facades and pretend to be something they're not, when they'd be far more likeable and worth my time if they behaved according to their innate personality.

Or is this just another "boy, I sure hate those camp queers" thread in a different guise?

No, no it's not, and I'd rather it wasn't turned into a "You wouldn't understand honey, you're straight" thread either. The OP is talking about masculinity amongst men in general, so maybe you could clue me in on what all that "straight acting" stereotype among some gay men is about?

I know what the men behaving camply is all about, but when a gay man dresses like Mr. T. and proclaims "You'd never know I was gay because I'm straight acting", he seemed quite offended when I replied "What makes you think I give a fcuk?".

Boskowski

I've known people who would consider me metrosexual because I shower most days, use deodorant, sometimes after shave and brush my teeth. Is it those kinda guys you're talking about when you say man's man?

Privileged White Male

FTA69 wrote: »

She's a prominent feminist commentator who writes for the Guardian. Ironically enough she also likes masculine men.

Jesus. Bet she's insufferable.

Deranged96

Czarcasm wrote: »

No FC I don't, because having taken the time to take them aside for five minutes on their own, I wasn't long discovering that not just the majority, but in every single instance, their extrovert behaviour was a mask for their innate personality. I really cannot abide by people who put on facades and pretend to be something they're not, when they'd be far more likeable and worth my time if they behaved according to their innate personality.

I don't want to get involved in this debate that's going on but {sorry if I'm reading this wrong}
the above is ridiculous.
My friend's little brother is 5 years old and his personality is unwaveringly camp, he's 5 but he can't say a single sentence without exuberant hand gestures and when you're talking to him his face goes through so many expressive changes its actually quite funny.
Now he's 5, I seriously doubt he has a façade to hind his 'innate personality'. {even though I'd be the first to admit that the intuitiveness and self-awareness of young children is too often underestimated}

_Redzer_

I've been told I'm a very masculine guy and that's just the way I am. I don't try to put it on either, but I'm very happy with that.

Nothing wrong with just being what you naturally are, whether that's camp as fúck, a lumberjack, or anything in between. Long as it's not played up, there's no issues for me.

Wibbs

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats wrong with being emotional?

Nothing, it's when it's overly emotional out of all proportion to the stimulus that tends to irritate me. That and people mistaking sentimentality for emotion.

Plus it seems these days some emotions are more acceptable than others. So if I react to a situation with anger that's bad, however if I react to the same situation with tears, the waterworks are much more acceptable. Anger is seen as active and male, tears are seen as passive and female. Which is bollocks. A toddler learns that tears can work better than anger at getting your own way. It's quite the active emotional response. This also negatively affects women. Women who get angry even for good bloody reasons are seen as stroppy, pushy, bitches etc.

Just as I would think someone a spoiled toddler if they overreact with anger I think them a spoiled toddler if they over react with tears. Snappy eejits and whingers irritate me equally. If you pull tears or aggression for no damned good reason I'll pretty much see you as lesser, self involved, a child vying for my attention and treat you accordingly, whether you be man or woman.

Rough Sleeper

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm not passing comment on ALL men who wear testicle restrictors though. I'd need more information before I could ultimately discern whether a stranger I've just met is a twat, but on balance I can only speak from my own experience when I say that of the number of men I've met who turned out to be twats, restrictive clothing did and does seem to be a common trait. Of course men in well fitted clothing can be twats too, but they're not usually so extrovert about it so don't get on my wick as quickly as the scrotum stranglers.

That's great. In my personal experience twats tend to dress in a more mainstream fashion. Which nullifies your anecdote.

Did you ever consider that some of these people of whom you speak may come across as twats because they're reciprocating? The fact that you keep referring to skinny jeans as "testicle restrictors" or similarly childish terms makes it seem that you have an issue with this style of dress in and of itself. It's like when people who have some sort of prejudice against country folk keep calling GAA "bogball," or anti-Republicans going on about "Shinnerbots" It's unhelpful and it's intentionally antagonistic.

We're neither living in Tudorian nor Georgian times now though, not to mention I think you've missed the point of glam rock in the 70's, sure as hell wasn't punk culture, and even at that most men were still wearing bell bottoms and flares. I trust you've seen John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever?

I've been kinda getting the impression that subculture wasn't exactly your Mastermind topic but, yes, skinny jeans were worn by punks in the 1970s. Look at the front cover of the Ramones' epnoymous album - drainpipes all round, and one of them's even wearing a belly top FFS. Sort of on the other end of the spectrum to glam rock as well.

My point regarding Tudorian and Georgian times is that trends come in and out of popularity and what's masculine in one era is outmoded in the next. The reality is that skinny jeans are becoming widely accepted by young males who are not effeminate, such as working-class youths and hip-hop artists. In terms of dress sense, we may well be entering a new Georgian era where tight pants are the norm for men. So you can choose to rage against the dying of the light and look like an old man grumbling about "hippies" who need a haircut, or you can be an adaptable person with a bit of perpective who realises that fashions shift and the reason that these people look strange to you might be that you're now in your 40s (I think?), your brain isn't as plastic as it once was, and things are only going to get progressively weirder.

Don't really see the point about mainstream culture and Jon Travolta. My point was that there have been and are subcultures, some of them rather testosteron-fuelled, where skinny jeans were/are worn. Which suggests that there is nothing inherently unmanly about the pants themselves.

If you're suggesting hip-hop culture is in any respect a reflection of masculine behaviour that men should aspire to, I'd suggest you might need to go again

I'm not suggesting that, you're reading into something I didn't imply. Which is why I used the term "macho," a word often used in the pejorative. The point is that hip-hop cluture is about as far from camp and effeminate as you can possibly get.

Clearly I'm not as on-trend and up to date on the latest developments in male fashion as you are. I mean, I appreciate the heads-up, but it's not something I would see myself ever agonising over.

So you've no interest in learning more about subculture but you'll happily claim that everyone wearing clothes like these is not to be taken seriously due to said clothing choice. Sounds about right.

average hero

My rant on masculinity and manliness:

Men are currently in a state of crisis. As Wibbs mentioned, there is a lack of (suitable) role models for young men today with the result being that they are more lost than ever. I've pals who dress like the stereotype - skinny jeans and the whole lot. We slag each other a bit and when I ask them why they dress like that, the response I get is - 'because I'm being myself and original'. That's fair enough but don't tell me that when you're wearing the 'fashionable haircut' and wearing mass produced River Island/TopMan etc etc gear like everybody else. Original....yeeaahh.

Which leads me to my next point. I think that the media is responsible for trying to make both genders androgynous. Toy shops have been asked to take down 'boys toys and girls toys' signs (google it). Men are being encouraged to get more into their looks as women have been for ages. Last week I read an article in the Guardian that reported that the fashion/beauty industry aren't content to simply torture women to look a certain way, but now men are being told if they can't look a certain way they are not worthy. Obviously in both the toys and beauty market they are trying to grow their markets by targeting the opposite gender. I studied marketing, I know how these thangs work. Any opposition to it and suddenly you're not progressive, you're a neanderthal. You're maybe even.....wait for it....not 'cool'. Shock, horror.

Traditional masculinity is dying. I don't mean by being a thug, but I mean by showing emotional restraint, protecting other's honour, having discipline (in many different facets of life) and working hard. With this being said, traditional femininity is dying too.

I wonder in about 30 years will people wake up and say 'what have we been doing to our natural urges and evolution for so long?'

_Redzer_

average hero wrote: »

My rant on masculinity and manliness:

Men are currently in a state of crisis. As Wibbs mentioned, there is a lack of (suitable) role models for young men today with the result being that they are more lost than ever. I've pals who dress like the stereotype - skinny jeans and the whole lot. We slag each other a bit and when I ask them why they dress like that, the response I get is - 'because I'm being myself and original'. That's fair enough but don't tell me that when you're wearing the 'fashionable haircut' and wearing mass produced River Island/TopMan etc etc gear like everybody else. Original....yeeaahh.

Which leads me to my next point. I think that the media is responsible for trying to make both genders androgynous. Toy shops have been asked to take down 'boys toys and girls toys' signs (google it). Men are being encouraged to get more into their looks as women have been for ages. Last week I read an article in the Guardian that reported that the fashion/beauty industry aren't content to simply torture women to look a certain way, but now men are being told if they can't look a certain way they are not worthy. Obviously in both the toys and beauty market they are trying to grow their markets by targeting the opposite gender. I studied marketing, I know how these thangs work. Any opposition to it and suddenly you're not progressive, you're a neanderthal. You're maybe even.....wait for it....not 'cool'. Shock, horror.

Traditional masculinity is dying. I don't mean by being a thug, but I mean by showing emotional restraint, protecting other's honour, having discipline (in many different facets of life) and working hard. With this being said, traditional femininity is dying too.

I wonder in about 30 years will people wake up and say 'what have we been doing to our natural urges and evolution for so long?'

Emotional restraint is manly?

All that does is bottle everything up. That's not manly that's weakness. Cry if you want to cry, no big deal.

The last time I cried was at my friends funeral a few weeks ago, before that, it was years. Still, if some men are more of an emotional disposition, then so be it. Very unhealthy to be bottling all that up and playing the tough man.
The rate of suicide is getting so high is because people still want to force this old age garbage that real men are emotionless robots, and showing emotion is weak and something to be looked down upon. It's not something to be aspired to or looked down upon -just as is.

Protecting your honour, working hard and having discipline is not gender specific, and both men and women could benefit from these traits.

The protecting your honour bit is also so ridiculous. What is this, the Wild West in the 1850s?

Galwayguy35

Links234 wrote: »

It really says a lot about the lack of security some guys have in their masculinity if they're so quick to admonish other men for being limp-wristed, in touch with their feelings, being a hipster/metrosexual or whatever the latest buzzword to put someone else down so you can feel better about yourselves is these days, or god forbid someone who lives in a city and doesn't need a car because they use public transport and therefor have no call to ever change a tire. And honestly, changing a tire isn't a "man skill", it's just a skill that someone may or may not need. My girlfriend could change a tire, but she's from the country, pretty much everyone in her family can do that as far as I know, and that's because of nessecity. What were so-called "man skills" before cars were invented? Would anyone here know a skill like shoeing a horse, or something else that's no longer relevent to most of our lives?

And whatever happened to just being yourself?

We learn our skills for the time we live in.

catallus

Being a man is great.

Czarcasm

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

That's great. In my personal experience twats tend to dress in a more mainstream fashion. Which nullifies your anecdote.

It wasn't an anecdote, it was an opinion.

Did you ever consider that some of these people of whom you speak may come across as twats because they're reciprocating?

Like you're doing right now? Yes, I considered it, but the more I seemed to disregard them for their behavior, the more twattish they behaved, until I figured I couldn't compete at their level and decided to walk away from the engagement.

The fact that you keep referring to skinny jeans as "testicle restrictors" or similarly childish terms makes it seem that you have an issue with this style of dress in and of itself. It's like when people who have some sort of prejudice against country folk keep calling GAA "bogball," or anti-Republicans going on about "Shinnerbots" It's unhelpful and it's intentionally antagonistic.

I'm not sure I could've been much clearer. Of course I have an issue with this style of clothing. It looks uncomfortable in that empathizing with a man getting his balls squeezed kind of way. If you think I'm unhelpful and antagonistic now, perhaps you'd better loosen those jeans before you pass out.

I've been kinda getting the impression that subculture wasn't exactly your Mastermind topic but, yes, skinny jeans were worn by punks in the 1970s. Look at the front cover of the Ramones' epnoymous album - drainpipes all round, and one of them's even wearing a belly top FFS. Sort of on the other end of the spectrum to glam rock as well.

You say The Ramones, I'll say The Beatles. Perhaps you could read up on Beatnik subculture of the 60's which sounds more like what you're talking about than the punk culture of the 70's, before you embarrass yourself on Mastermind.

My point regarding Tudorian and Georgian times is that trends come in and out of popularity and what's masculine in one era is outmoded in the next. The reality is that skinny jeans are becoming widely accepted by young males who are not effeminate, such as working-class youths and hip-hop artists. In terms of dress sense, we may well be entering a new Georgian era where tight pants are the norm for men. So you can choose to rage against the dying of the light and look like an old man grumbling about "hippies" who need a haircut, or you can be an adaptable person with a bit of perpective who realises that fashions shift and the reason that these people look strange to you might be that you're now in your 40s (I think?), your brain isn't as plastic as it once was, and things are only going to get progressively weirder.

The pseudo-intellectual armchair psychology is palpable. A poor attempt at best. The only thing that's weird here is that you seem very defensive of what you claim is merely an article of clothing. I've already admitted on here I'm a middle-aged old fart, and I look forward to another 20 years time when I reeeeealy won't give a fcuk.

Don't really see the point about mainstream culture and Jon Travolta. My point was that there have been and are subcultures, some of them rather testosteron-fuelled, where skinny jeans were/are worn. Which suggests that there is nothing inherently unmanly about the pants themselves.

Potayto/potahto at this stage really.

I'm not suggesting that, you're reading into something I didn't imply. Which is why I used the term "macho," a word often used in the pejorative. The point is that hip-hop cluture is about as far from camp and effeminate as you can possibly get.

You may want to sit down for this, but... :pac:

I just figured you were doing that whole irony thing an old fart like me doesn't seem to get either

So you've no interest in learning more about subculture but you'll happily claim that everyone wearing clothes like these is not to be taken seriously due to said clothing choice. Sounds about right.

Learning more about what subculture exactly? Wearing skinny jeans isn't a subculture, it's a fashion trend! Isn't that what you've been saying all along? I can understand young people wearing clothing I might not "get", but grown men wearing skinny jeans and slim-fit suits?

Too right I can decide whether to take them seriously or not.

JuliusCaesar

Feminism might have come to Irish women, but it certainly hasn't come to Irish men. Who is responsible for the majority of housework and childcare in most households? Even when both partners are working full-time. Which partner tends to have more free time/time to pursue their own interests? How many men are asked Gaybo's favourite question of new TDs (female) - who is looking after your children? even now, 20 and more years later.

As regards domestic violence, let us please see a comparison of violence done. In general men are physically stronger than women, so I would imagine that the physical damage/threat done to women is greater. The majority of sexual abuse is done to women and children by men, there is no parity there. Men have always been more likely to abandon their families. Women abandoning their children is much rarer. Men tend to carry out murder/suicide of their families much more frequently than women.

As long as a majority of men control access to promotions, there will be less women promoted. Traits that are seen as positive in men are seen as negative in women. Assertive/bitchy, decisive/bossy etc.

I like men being men and I like women being women. In all, we have a lot more in common than not. We are all human and we all have feelings. I appreciate hearing men's take on things as I like hearing women's opinions too. Together we are stronger, together and respecting and respectful of each other, valuing each other's contributions we can move forward. Alas, all too often our relationships (in society, rather than as individual relationships/couples) are seen as some sort of competition.

Stereotypes are detrimental to individuals.

Galwayguy35

JuliusCaesar wrote: »

Feminism might have come to Irish women, but it certainly hasn't come to Irish men. Who is responsible for the majority of housework and childcare in most households? Even when both partners are working full-time. Which partner tends to have more free time/time to pursue their own interests? How many men are asked Gaybo's favourite question of new TDs (female) - who is looking after your children? even now, 20 and more years later.

As regards domestic violence, let us please see a comparison of violence done. In general men are physically stronger than women, so I would imagine that the physical damage/threat done to women is greater. The majority of sexual abuse is done to women and children by men, there is no parity there. Men have always been more likely to abandon their families. Women abandoning their children is much rarer. Men tend to carry out murder/suicide of their families much more frequently than women.

As long as a majority of men control access to promotions, there will be less women promoted. Traits that are seen as positive in men are seen as negative in women. Assertive/bitchy, decisive/bossy etc.

I like men being men and I like women being women. In all, we have a lot more in common than not. We are all human and we all have feelings. I appreciate hearing men's take on things as I like hearing women's opinions too. Together we are stronger, together and respecting and respectful of each other, valuing each other's contributions we can move forward. Alas, all too often our relationships (in society, rather than as individual relationships/couples) are seen as some sort of competition.

Stereotypes are detrimental to individuals.

The first part of that post just comes off as man hating generalisations.

Mardy Bum

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The first part of that post just comes off as man hating generalisations.

Statistically I'd say it is spot on though.

It wasn't me!

I think one of the least manly things being displayed here is giving such a fcuk about the clothing other people wear. I barely give a fcuk what I'm wearing. The mental energy which could be spent on other people's sartorial decisions is much better spent wondering whether the hatchet needs sharpening before I get a new supply of firewood or how many deer I'll need to feed me through the winter.