'Young men in Ireland need feminism'

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So privilege is a real thing it it isn't? Careful now. A lot of the fine posters here are fairly quick to dismiss the notion of privilege you're putting on this woman.

Or is being born wealthy he only valid privilege because you personally, as you keep telling everyone, were born poor? The men in this forum won't thank you for pushing open the door to 'privilege' as a legitimate concept that needs to be addressed. Maybe then there could be other legitimate privileges that people are unaware of. There could even be privilege in the way men are taught to behave from the time they're born. Careful

I bet none of the men of this forum are critical of you for it though as it was done as a means to have a go at feminism, even if it was just having a go at one woman in this instance. I'd say you're safe enough

Well inequality of opportunity is a thing, and I'm glad you agree that it's a legitimate concept that needs to be addressed. Listen as you say yourself there's many a time on Boards I spend talking about inequality. If there's inequality then I'm all for stamping it out. I'm a big fan of getting minorities (disadvantaged students, women and ethnic minorities) into science.

I posted about my experience to highlight the fact that a lot of modern feminism is an advocacy group for women, and part of what advocacy groups do is to promote the interest of that group above others.

The biggest cause of inequality is the wealth you're born into. This decides what school you go to, the education you get ect. You cannot say one gender is more privileged than another without knowing all the facts. I'm a man but if woman went to a top private school then she is far more privileged than me.

What some feminists do is promote their views about gender inequality above all other factors such as class or race. In some cases, such as the one I mentioned, feminists I have encountered can be quite hypocritical about privilege.

For instance look at the discrepancy between how gender inequality and class inequality are treated. It doesn't seem an issue that wealth selection occurs in schools.

The_Captain

I don't really see the big reason to object against consent classes.

I understand some people view this as an attack on men, a kind of accusatory thing where all men are predators, and the more paranoid see it as a form of indoctrination and demonising manhood.

But the courses don't have to be a vehicle for hardline feminists to attack men. You're dealing with 17/18 year olds here. For all the bragging and exaggeration, you're dealing with people who have little dealings with proper relationships, who don't actually know what they are and aren't allowed to get away with.

Running it like a sex ed class, where it's actually informative and not political, would benefit both genders.

pumpkin4life

The_Captain wrote: »

I don't really see the big reason to object against consent classes.

I understand some people view this as an attack on men, a kind of accusatory thing where all men are predators, and the more paranoid see it as a form of indoctrination and demonising manhood.

But the courses don't have to be a vehicle for hardline feminists to attack men. You're dealing with 17/18 year olds here. For all the bragging and exaggeration, you're dealing with people who have little dealings with proper relationships, who don't actually know what they are and aren't allowed to get away with.

Running it like a sex ed class, where it's actually informative and not political, would benefit both genders.

C'mon. Don't sexually assault or rape people.

Every 18 year old knows this.

Most men have lost their virginity or had a mini relationship by that age.

Sidenote: if you're this age and are unfortunate enough to be stuck in Trinners and this shìte is pushed on you: prepare to walk out or organize yourselves accordingly. Bonkers stuff this be.

Zubeneschamali

Widdershins wrote: »

Men have arguably got a better system of handling problems and they compartmentalise their feelings very effectively, in general.

Apart from all the young men who kill themselves.

One of those Rubber Bandit fellas was on TV talking about it recently, he had an interesting take on it.

Widdershins

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Apart from all the young men who kill themselves.

One of those Rubber Bandit fellas was on TV talking about it recently, he had an interesting take on it.

That was discussed before now on this thread. I don't personally believe it has anything to do with what I wrote. Not all men have difficult expressing themselves they just do it differently to women and on their own terms. In itself that is not an inadequacy or failing or problem. I actually admire those men and have learned from them.
If they are actually sick with mental illness then it's a different matter (for both genders). Depression often makes people reluctant to talk about things because it seems pointless, and there's a waiting list for counselling. Another issue that needs to be looked at.

I don't follow the Rubber Bandits but one of his points was earning ability and I was previously saying this is an issue for both genders now. It's very hard for couple to provide for a family no matter what configuration they use for breadwinning and childcare etc.

pumpkin4life

Widdershins wrote: »

Brilliant post.
Men have arguably got a better system of handling problems and they compartmentalise their feelings very effectively, in general.

I agree with this. I never really bought the "men don't speak or open up" idea because it flat out contradicts what I've seen myself.

Without sounding like some socially awkward MRA twatarse, if I look at the people around me who have fùcked up their lives or have suffered the most in terms of flat out bad decisions and bad things happening to them, its predominantly male.

I also think this is more biological than social. If you take a look at most fields and break it down by sex, there's usually far more variance for men than women.

Widdershins

pumpkin4life wrote: »

I agree with this. I never really bought the "men don't speak or open up" idea because it flat out contradicts what I've seen myself.

Without sounding like some socially awkward MRA twatarse, if I look at the people around me who have fùcked up their lives or have suffered the most in terms of flat out bad decisions and bad things happening to them, its predominantly male.

I also think this is more biological than social. If you take a look at most fields and break it down by sex, there's usually far more variance for men than women.

Taking a good thing and turning it into a bad thing seems to be the modus operandii of some feminists.

brickmauser

The_Captain wrote: »

I don't really see the big reason to object against consent classes.

I understand some people view this as an attack on men, a kind of accusatory thing where all men are predators, and the more paranoid see it as a form of indoctrination and demonising manhood.

But the courses don't have to be a vehicle for hardline feminists to attack men. You're dealing with 17/18 year olds here. For all the bragging and exaggeration, you're dealing with people who have little dealings with proper relationships, who don't actually know what they are and aren't allowed to get away with.

Running it like a sex ed class, where it's actually informative and not political, would benefit both genders.

The church was in people's bedrooms long enough.
Now you want a new clergy in the form of feminists interfering?

seamus

silverharp wrote: »

toy studies have been done and have shown a biological basis for it and sure some boys might not like playing with trucks and some girls do

I don't subscribe to the "gender is a social construct" theory, but these toy studies are insanely difficult to control for. You can't isolate children. For all attempts to exclude any form of social conditioning, there are permanently going to be subtle social things at play; be that seeing other children dressed up as princesses and builders, or advertisements on TV that don't expressly say, "for boys", but only use one gender in the ad.

Social influences are both so massive and so subtle, that I think it's almost impossible to say that you've been able to control for them.

The_Captain wrote: »

I don't really see the big reason to object against consent classes.

I understand some people view this as an attack on men, a kind of accusatory thing where all men are predators, and the more paranoid see it as a form of indoctrination and demonising manhood.

The main issue with consent classes has really been the fact that some universities were making them mandatory for male students only, or were at least being pressured to.

As college is a pressure cookers of people riding eachother's brains out, I think it's strongly in any university's interests to provide some kind of induction sex ed class covering the specific topics that will arise frequently in college - consent (especially where alcohol is concerned), protected sex, privacy, distribution of photos, etc etc.

This is all stuff that should be covered in earlier curricula, but many students won't have had an opportunity before college to "practice", so a short mandatory refresher can do no harm.

steddyeddy

Even if we decide gender is or isn't a social construct we cannot divide education by gender, race, class ect.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

I don't subscribe to the "gender is a social construct" theory, but these toy studies are insanely difficult to control for. You can't isolate children. For all attempts to exclude any form of social conditioning, there are permanently going to be subtle social things at play; be that seeing other children dressed up as princesses and builders, or advertisements on TV that don't expressly say, "for boys", but only use one gender in the ad.

Social influences are both so massive and so subtle, that I think it's almost impossible to say that you've been able to control for them.

it might be difficult to control everything but there have been studies done on presocialised infants, boys preferred a moving object, girls preferred a face. or some medical conditions were brought up that highlighted how hormones affect behaviour.
you are even starting to find uber progressive (abusive imo) parents whining on the net that their boys wont play will dolls and are only interested in playing with boys toys. also I think you could do a large survey based on younger sisters and older brothers or vice versa and review the choices of the younger sibling where everything is lined up for the younger sibling to follow the older child's choices. they will all point the one way

Zulu

I've a boy and a girl, 2 and 3 respectively.
Gender is definitely NOT a social construct.


And to the mother who felt it was acceptable to have a go at my wife because my daughter was wearing a pink coat in the playground - go fu(k yourself, my daughter picked it out. She liked the puffiness. She also picked out spider man pajamas. And she can pick out whatever she wants in my book.

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

I've a boy and a girl, 2 and 3 respectively.
Gender is definitely NOT a social construct.


And to the mother who felt it was acceptable to have a go at my wife because my daughter was wearing a pink coat in the playground - go fu(k yourself, my daughter picked it out. She liked the puffiness. She also picked out spider man pajamas. And she can pick out whatever she wants in my book.

I've a nephew and niece, exact same ages.

The girl is quite boisterous, likes to climb anything she sees. Nobody really comments on this.

if the boy climbs something, there are a few people in my family who will always say "oh he's a real boy isn't he".

He cries a lot more than the girl and is really given a lot of flack for it.

The girl does love pink, just like your daughter does, but that's clearly a social construct.

Zulu

LLMMLL wrote: »

... but that's clearly a social construct.

Pink, perhaps. But the difference in the play is remarkable. As is the approach to play, choice of toys etc..

Naturally there's a big crossover, as they influence each other but boys and girls are different, there's no doubt about it.

silverharp

Zulu wrote: »

I've a boy and a girl, 2 and 3 respectively.
Gender is definitely NOT a social construct.


And to the mother who felt it was acceptable to have a go at my wife because my daughter was wearing a pink coat in the playground - go fu(k yourself, my daughter picked it out. She liked the puffiness. She also picked out spider man pajamas. And she can pick out whatever she wants in my book.

the group that push "gender is a construct" are the least likely to be married or have kids of their own, its worse than getting family lectures from a catholic priest. :pac:

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

Pink, perhaps. But the difference in the play is remarkable. As is the approach to play, choice of toys etc..

Naturally there's a big crossover, as they influence each other but boys and girls are different, there's no doubt about it.

Yeah but if a 2-3 year old can be influenced into demanding pink things, when no special effort is made to get her to like pink, isn't it possible that play is being influenced the same way?

silverharp

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah but if a 2-3 year old can be influenced into demanding pink things, when no special effort is made to get her to like pink, isn't it possible that play is being influenced the same way?

but why are you desperate to hang on to something when we kind of know boys and girls behave differently. why not just accept that "blank slate" is nonsense and that we are all a combination of biology and environment?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah but if a 2-3 year old can be influenced into demanding pink things, when no special effort is made to get her to like pink, isn't it possible that play is being influenced the same way?

I'd say the answer is in the middle, as usual. It's a combination of innate differences and socialization. Of course kids are influenced by what they see around them, example and advertising being obvious pointers to 'what girls/boys like', the ocean of pink in girls clothes departments etc, but I've no doubt that there are differences from birth too.

What the balance is, I've no idea.

Skommando

God forbid a little girl likes pink and likes to be feminine instead of masculine. What's the world coming to.

What is this halfwit shyte that women and girls now have to masculine and we should have some sort of uniform mono sex children ?

The differences between males and females, and the diversity are good things, not bad things.

These differences fill in the gaps in society and make for far better all round teams, families and society.

FortySeven

Skommando wrote: »

God forbid a little girl likes pink and likes to be feminine instead of masculine. What's the world coming to.

What is this halfwit shyte that women and girls now have to masculine and we should have some sort of uniform mono sex children ?

The differences between males and females, and the diversity are good things, not bad things.

These differences fill in the gaps in society and make for far better all round teams, families and society.

Hah, condemning our daughters to a life of sexism, drudgery and servitude. Tis not the 1600s sir, our children shall be asexual drones, flitting from male to female at a whim. Creatures of freedom and prosperity.....

OK, can't keep that up for long. I hate this gender ****e. Things were better when we could just be what we were. Can someone remind me why this was changed again?

LLMMLL

silverharp wrote: »

but why are you desperate to hang on to something when we kind of know boys and girls behave differently. why not just accept that "blank slate" is nonsense and that we are all a combination of biology and environment?

Why do you feel the need to portray me as desperate?

I'm simply pointing out that girls and boys playing differently may be down to social factors. And it may be heavily based on social factors and only lightly biologically based. And it could be vice-versa.

Hardly desperate.

LLMMLL

Skommando wrote: »

God forbid a little girl likes pink and likes to be feminine instead of masculine. What's the world coming to.

What is this halfwit shyte that women and girls now have to masculine and we should have some sort of uniform mono sex children ?

The differences between males and females, and the diversity are good things, not bad things.

These differences fill in the gaps in society and make for far better all round teams, families and society.

But let's suppose that just like "girls like pink" is completely a social influence, typically "feminine" traits such as being more docile, quieter, better behaved are also socially influenced. Many people see this as contributing to things like career choice etc. So why wouldn't they try to change this?

Skommando

LLMMLL wrote: »

But let's suppose that just like "girls like pink" is completely a social influence, typically "feminine" traits such as being more docile, quieter, better behaved are also socially influenced. Many people see this as contributing to things like career choice etc. So why wouldn't they try to change this?

first of all before you try to twist things any further, docility and quietness are not "feminine" or "mascilne" "traits".

Secondly, if a little girl likes pink, and wants to do something feminine, why is it any business of yours ?

Also why are you trying to ensure she should feel like she is doing something wrong ?

LLMMLL

Skommando wrote: »

first of all before you try to twist things any further, docility and quietness are not "feminine" or "mascilne" "traits".

Secondly, if a little girl likes pink, and wants to do something feminine, why is it any business of yours ?

Also why are you trying to ensure she should feel like she is doing something wrong ?

Oh please, there's been pages of this thread saying that education is not geared towards boys as it punishes those that are boisterous an now you're trying to claims that docile ness is not viewed as a feminine trait?

Who said anything about making little girls feel they are doing something wrong? I never said that. Don't think anyone has.

Widdershins

FortySeven wrote: »

Hah, condemning our daughters to a life of sexism, drudgery and servitude. Tis not the 1600s sir, our children shall be asexual drones, flitting from male to female at a whim. Creatures of freedom and prosperity.....

OK, can't keep that up for long. I hate this gender ****e. Things were better when we could just be what we were. Can someone remind me why this was changed again?

Equality, of course.

FortySeven

Widdershins wrote: »

Equality, of course.

Is that the feminist version of equality or the lesser spotted variety?

Dr Jakub

Zulu wrote: »

I've a boy and a girl, 2 and 3 respectively.
Gender is definitely NOT a social construct.


And to the mother who felt it was acceptable to have a go at my wife because my daughter was wearing a pink coat in the playground - go fu(k yourself, my daughter picked it out. She liked the puffiness. She also picked out spider man pajamas. And she can pick out whatever she wants in my book.

What?

Zulu

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yeah but if a 2-3 year old can be influenced into demanding pink things, when no special effort is made to get her to like pink, isn't it possible that play is being influenced the same way?

Yeah but no. My son, who's reference point was his sister, who's toys beyond soft toys were his sisters, plays entirely different. He is raised in the same house, by the same people. Essentially, if anything the only difference is there being an older sister and her choice of toys.

And yet he does what other little boys do. Plays like other little boys. And frankly he is carnage.

So obviously you'll think that we treat him differently, that we 'encourage' him differently, but we don't.

It's gender, innit.

Widdershins

FortySeven wrote: »

Is that the feminist version of equality or the lesser spotted variety?

Makes a lot of noise but is never seen.

Zulu

Dr Jakub wrote: »

What?

Yeah that happened. ****in unbelievable wench. Luckily I wasn't there, but then I doubt she would have said anything had I been.