'Young men in Ireland need feminism'

Widdershins

Zulu wrote: »

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

She probably wrote a Facebook post about it which then when viral.

Dr Jakub

Zulu wrote: »

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

What did she say?

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

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.

Well it's certainly possible that you treat him differently without realising. Gender roles are so ingrained that you wouldn't even think you were treating him differently.

But that's not the only option. He could be in crèche where he's treated differently.

Even if he isn't he just may be a boisterous child, regardless of gender.

learn_more

Women need male feminists because they can't do all this feminism thing all by themselves just like with everything else. :P

Zulu

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well it's certainly possible that you treat him differently without realising...

So I claim I dont. The only difference it's not hypothetical in real life.

But that's not the only option. He could be in crèche...

No creche. I just explained the significant influences.

Even if he isn't he just may be a boisterous child, regardless of gender.

Or maybe he's just a boy, and guess what, boys ARE different to girls.

Dr Jakub wrote: »

What did she say?

Well, I wasn't there, but something along the lines of "oh you shouldn't really dress her up in pink, that it's only reinforcing gender stereotypes, and she should be allowed be herself".

Because that woman knew best what my daughter wanted, and she clearly couldn't express herself by wearing pink.

Outlaw Pete

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?

It's not about changing it, it's about letting girls and boys do what they like and stop stigmatizing things which have traditionally been seen as feminine, which is something feminists have unquestionably done. Only recently some people with a feminist agenda altered an advert to make it appear as if a clothing store was offering girls a 'Social Butterfly' outfit alongside a 'Scholar' outfit offered to boys. Cue outrage:

https://twitter.com/LetToysBeToys/status/759704003642961921


Only thing was, that wasn't what happened at all... as when I found the actually section on the Gap's website, the 'Social butterfly' outfit was actually offered to girls as an alternative to a boy's 'Comedian' outfit. The outfit they had offered girls to as an alternative to the 'Scholar' outfit was actually an outfit called The Adventurer.

So the question you have to ask here is why would these people bother going to that much trouble to try and make girls look as if there are being oppressed in western society and 'the patriarchy' is trying to keep them 'in their place' as it were. What would the motive of such people be? And the answer to that is that it's the same reason why someone like Sarah Silverman would go on camera and lie about an ex boss of her's once paying her only $10 for doing a set one night at his comedy club while he paid a male comedian $60 for doing his set the same night....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU4EH_iv2hE

The above would no doubt have never been challenged if not for the fact that the club owner remembers the night in question and confirmed that what Sarah said was complete and utter baloney:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5Lm2pluio

All these people are pretty much doing the same thing, just slightly different versions of it, and that is that they are attempting to cash in on the marketability of portraying females as being oppressed and which patriarchal society is actively trying to prevent from truly expressing themselves. It's huge business right now and men can have a slice of the action to if they enable / endorse these notions. Hence Blindboy and ever other fool who tells us that men are feminist deficient before then declaring themselves male feminists.

The most annoying thing about all this is that no matter how wrong liberals are or how much they misrepresent situations and the facts, it doesn't really matter as there is no consequence for doing so, even when these people are caught bald face lying. They are on the populist side of the fence and so it makes no difference if what they say is true or not. Sarah Silverman lied but that's not really all that important as 1) she lied about a white man and 2) she lied about something it's fashionable to believe in: the gender pay gap. And therefore, in the eyes of the liberal left, she was evoking Scarface qualities, always telling the truth, even when she lied.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

But let's suppose that just like "girls like pink" is completely a social influence

In the pink example it very much is a cultural thing. Pink and reds in general were very much a male colour, sky blue was for girls and women(QV the colours in representations of the Catholic Virgin Mary. Blue). Reds including pink(which was red for most of history) were seen as strong, aggressive and male, while blue was seen as calming and nurturing. For some odd reason it switched and switched quite recently, like in the last hundred years and seemingly overnight. Cultural colour cues could fill a thread.

That said it's too easy to conflate a cultural change like that with underlying general differences that transcend culture and history. EG 200 years ago we might have switched pink for blue in nurseries, but the general differences in male and female children would have been extremely similar to what parents report today and parents across the world and across cultures with it.

Skommando

Zulu wrote: »

"oh you shouldn't really dress her up in pink, that it's only reinforcing gender stereotypes, and she should be allowed be herself"

Why do seemingly normal people tolerate these halfwit nazi's and the poison they have been taught to parrot on reflex ?

Imagine telling little girls they can't wear pink, or do anything seen as remotely feminine if they want to, and that they should feel guilty and wrong and so should their mothers, if they do.

I'm glad I probably won't be alive to see this brave new world, and if I still am, I'm glad to say, I'll proudly be one of the very first they'll round up at night, shoot in the back of head and dump in a ditch.

py2006

Wibbs wrote: »

In the pink example it very much is a cultural thing. Pink and reds in general were very much a male colour, sky blue was for girls and women(QV the colours in representations of the Catholic Virgin Mary. Blue). Reds including pink(which was red for most of history) were seen as strong, aggressive and male, while blue was seen as calming and nurturing. For some odd reason it switched and switched quite recently, like in the last hundred years and seemingly overnight. Cultural colour cues could fill a thread.

You watched that episode of QI too, huh?

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The above would no doubt have never been challenged if not for the fact that the club owner remembers the night in question and confirmed that what Sarah said was complete and utter baloney:

Ouch and Buuuuurnnnn. Silly bint. Hardly a shock mind you. What gets me wondering though; is what is these muppet's endpoint? After all the martyrdom and victimhood olympics what do they actually want?

Wibbs

py2006 wrote: »

You watched that episode of QI too, huh?

Funny enough, no. It was my maternal grandmother of all people who told me of the switch.

FortySeven

Wibbs wrote: »

Ouch and Buuuuurnnnn. Silly bint. Hardly a shock mind you. What gets me wondering though; is what is these muppet's endpoint? After all the martyrdom and victimhood olympics what do they actually want?

They just want to be seen and heard. If they had any coherent endgame then this would all be put to bed already. It's just attention.

Skommando

Wibbs wrote: »

What gets me wondering though; is what is these muppet's endpoint? After all the martyrdom and victimhood olympics what do they actually want?

It's an age old, time proven strategy.

"A lie told often enough becomes truth."

Ulysses Gaze

Wibbs wrote: »

Ouch and Buuuuurnnnn. Silly bint. Hardly a shock mind you. What gets me wondering though; is what is these muppet's endpoint? After all the martyrdom and victimhood olympics what do they actually want?

Attention.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

Ouch and Buuuuurnnnn. Silly bint. Hardly a shock mind you. What gets me wondering though; is what is these muppet's endpoint? After all the martyrdom and victimhood olympics what do they actually want?

I don't think there is an endpoint, I believe these people are in it purely for the self promotion aspect (keeping themselves "relevant" without actually having to do very much at all) and of course the moolah. There is too much money being made for there ever to be an endpoint!

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

Or maybe he's just a boy, and guess what, boys ARE different to girls.

Well then my niece must be a boy too. I'll let her parents know.

JupiterKid

The attempted feminisation of young men will not work - it will backfire badly and the evidence of this is growing. Men need a new masculinity model - something that can only come from other men, particularly role models.

Equality between the sexes is the goal - not a gender war. Wars only cause casualties. Boys need direction and guidance from their fathers or father figures. Without direction and these older males to guide them, they are lost.

Jimmy Garlic

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well then my niece must be a boy too. I'll let her parents know.

She's a tomboy, she will grow out of it when the hormones kick in. Please don't try to convince her that she is transsexual, or a butch lesbian.

FortySeven

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

She's a tomboy, she will grow out of it when the hormones kick in. Please don't try to convince her that she is transsexual, or a butch lesbian.

Careful now. There is a child here in the UK that identifies some way. The parents said don't be silly, you'll grow out of it. They are now battling social services in court to keep their child.

Widdershins

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

She's a tomboy, she will grow out of it when the hormones kick in. Please don't try to convince her that she is transsexual, or a butch lesbian.

So confused. We're supposed to disregard gender and the traditional trappings of gender but at the same time,try to get children to change their gender.

london bus 200

I WAS TALKIN OT MY DOCTOR ABOUT HIS A COUPLE A MONTHS AGO, SO I KEEP MY HEAD ABOVE EVERYBODY, AND IN THE NIGHTTIME I TTAKE IT I T, OUT, AND WHEN U AVENT GO A SIM U DON NEE D A PHONE, BU THEY KEEPS GIVIN YOU NUMBER OU TO THE PEOPLE WHO DONT NEED IT,

I DONT KNOW, BUT WHEN THEM NUTTERS AT GPSQ ARE LOOKIN AT YOUR CASE,

LIKE U SAID BEFOR I MAKE I DIFFICU; FOT THEM, JUSY CHANGE THE SIM-CARD SO

FortySeven

london bus 200 wrote: »

I WAS TALKIN OT MY DOCTOR ABOUT HIS A COUPLE A MONTHS AGO, SO I KEEP MY HEAD ABOVE EVERYBODY, AND IN THE NIGHTTIME I TTAKE IT I T, OUT, AND WHEN U AVENT GO A SIM U DON NEE D A PHONE, BU THEY KEEPS GIVIN YOU NUMBER OU TO THE PEOPLE WHO DONT NEED IT,

I DONT KNOW, BUT WHEN THEM NUTTERS AT GPSQ ARE LOOKIN AT YOUR CASE,

LIKE U SAID BEFOR I MAKE I DIFFICU; FOT THEM, JUSY CHANGE THE SIM-CARD SO

It's GCHQ. And changing your SIM won't do **** son. You're on top.

london bus 200

THERE NEEDS TO BE FURTHER SFAE GAURDS BECAUSE I DNO SEE THEM BEE PART OF THE CHANNEL FOUR EHRE THEY FOLLOWED I IN FACT OF AND NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE IT

Outlaw Pete

Wibbs wrote: »

Ouch and Buuuuurnnnn. Silly bint. Hardly a shock mind you. What gets me wondering though; is what is these muppet's endpoint? After all the martyrdom and victimhood olympics what do they actually want?

Well, as I see it anyway, even if the gravy train stopped tomorrow, they'll have got what they wanted as the benefits are plentiful. First one is obviously financial reward. I remember watching Amy Schumer's stuff over the years and thinking she was just an average comedian (no change there) and then I read her moaning about feminism one day and how women were being objectified and within a year her career went through the stratosphere and she was getting offered film roles, book deals etc, but the reason that buzz around her started was not because her material was cracking people up or that people were relating to it, is was because she was saying what people, particularly feminists at the time, wanted to hear: that she was a victim.

Same with Louise O'neill. Take away the patriarchal oppression, men are objectifying us and need to stop with all the raping, does she say anything of interest or that is unique? Nope but yet she's another that is doing very very well financially off the back of it all. Primarily because it guarantees column inches given that there's an undeniable and insatiable appetite for what she is saying, in the right circles at least, and has been for quite some time.

I am convinced that is what Sarah Silverman was attempting to do as no doubt she seen the reaction to Amy and Jennifer Lawrence's public comments about the gender pay gap and foresaw perhaps a headline along the lines of 'Sarah struggled to get by as an up and coming female comic in a harsh male dominated environment, but yet she soldiered on despite all that to become the huge success she sis today. You go girl! and I have to admit it has a nice ring to it. Would've been a great backdrop to the launch of a new tour / DVD.

As for all those that seem to grind out the same nonsense day in day out but are unlikely to see a financial pay off from it, I think for them there are other benefits, main one being the social aspect of it all. To believe and partake in all this crap means likes, retweets and perhaps even invites and one female poster said as much a few days ago. Perhaps it is these feminists which Louise refers to "covens" in the following recent comment:

I’ve come to realise that the world has been designed to promote and protect white, straight, cis-gender, able-bodied men and no matter how hard the rest of us try to mould ourselves to fit that ‘standard’, it’s not possible. We need to find our own way, form our own communities and networks, create our own covens. We are many and we are powerful. Believe in yourself, speak your truth, and find your tribe.

Fight the power, middle class able-bodied white girl. Lastly, I think another benefit from buying into all this stuff is the Comfort Blanket Effect® as should a woman not succeed at whatever it is that she tries to do in life, well then it's not really all her fault, given that the system is really only set up to see white cis males succeed.

If ever anything sums up the third wave feminists of today it's how instead of seeing Ronda Rousey as a woman to be admired, they instead tried to get her to see herself as a victim. The very type of women feminists should have been heralding and it seems that they were of the opinion that if she would only moan about how much tougher it is for her as a woman to do what she did, or how she wasn't happy with what she was being paid compared to the guys, then they could fight her corner for her... but unfortunately for them she was having none of it and despite what anyone thinks about I think pretty much telling feminists to go fcuk themselves makes her a legend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frZzlRCdJ-I

stateofflux

how anyone can take anything said by a man wearing a shopping bag over his head seriously, is beyond me.

FortySeven

stateofflux wrote: »

how anyone can take anything said by a man wearing a shopping bag over his head seriously, is beyond me.

I wouldn't if I met him in supermacs to be fair but he was on RTE. You have to give it a bit of weight.

Doesn't make him right but it gives him a bit of credence.

seamus

Wibbs wrote: »

Ouch and Buuuuurnnnn. Silly bint. Hardly a shock mind you. What gets me wondering though; is what is these muppet's endpoint? After all the martyrdom and victimhood olympics what do they actually want?

This is the "post-truth" buzzword being thrown around at the moment. In reality it's as old as time itself, but always seem to catch people by surprise.

The message is more important than the facts. Stay on message, because the message is right. The facts are malleable, counter-evidence is an aberration; the message is correct so stay on message regardless of the facts.

All sides do it, the traditionally "conservative" sides far more guilty than others, but those who would incorrectly label themselves as "liberals" have cottoned onto it in recent times.

Zulu

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well then my niece must be a boy too. I'll let her parents know.

Arragh sure you're only awesome at misrepresenting what other posters say - and consistent too. Fair play.

I'm discussing my children not your extended family. I could be lazy and say that "children aren't a hivemind". See what I did there?

...regardless of that clearly not all children are alike, it's a multicoloured world. Majorities tend to be as obvuios as the truth in the long run though.

Skommando wrote: »

Why do seemingly normal people tolerate these halfwit nazi's and the poison they have been taught to parrot on reflex ?

In my wife's case? Because she's a kind hearted soul not used to confrontation. And this nutter caught her on the hop and left her gobsmacked!
It's probably as well I wasn't there though. At least this sailed over my childrens head, as opposed to seeing their dad have a heated conversation with a feminazi (i think its safe to refer to this random lunatic as such without causing too much offence?).

pumpkin4life

Feck, I have a pet hate for the phrase "post truth" (nothing against yourself seamus, I knows what yous mean when you're using it). It's such an arrogant "we know better than you cause we have the truth" turn of phrase; saw it cropping up a lot during the Trump/Clinton election.

The reality is that all of us are rationalizing, crazy lads who are subject to a plethora of psychological biases. I guess the only thing is that these days politicians like Trump or big companies in general have mastered these techniques. So it's more in the public eye.

Widdershins

Then there's ''your truth'' and ''my truth''.