'Young men in Ireland need feminism'

seamus

pumpkin4life wrote: »

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.

That's what I mean when I say it's a buzzword. It's an attempt to pretend that some new tactic was employed that defeated you, when in reality it's the same old large-scale confidence tricks, just employed over new media like the internet.
The truth has never really mattered. The argument is rarely won using devastating facts and figures. It's won by appealing to people's biases, not challenging them.

Everyone has a tendency to think that with social progress and technological advancement comes the assurance that everything will be better, that because society and technology do things better than they used to that humans are biologically better than they used to be.

However at the base of it, we're no psychologically further on than we were 50,000 years ago. So the same tricks which convinced people to follow Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great will work for Donald Trump, Duterte or Angela Merkel.

All you have to do is figure out how to use those tricks over modern media.

LLMMLL

Zulu wrote: »

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.

I'm not misrepresenting what you said. You are.

You did not just state that you've a boisterous boy and a quieter girl. You used it as evidence that boys in general are boisterous and girls are quieter.

Now you're saying that kids are varied which is what I said but you disagreed. I said maybe your boy is boisterous due to his individual personality and not his gender. You said maybe it's because he's a boy. How on earth have you been misrepresented?

Jimmy Garlic

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm not misrepresenting what you said. You are.

You did not just state that you've a boisterous boy and a quieter girl. You used it as evidence that boys in general are boisterous and girls are quieter.

Now you're saying that kids are varied which is what I said but you disagreed. I said maybe your boy is boisterous due to his individual personality and not his gender. You said maybe it's because he's a boy. How on earth have you been misrepresented?

There are biological differences between girls and boys that make them develop differently physically and cognitively, this has an effect on the things that they are interested in and general behaviour. Environmental factors may be partially responsible but the underlying biology is still there and predominant. Different behaviours and predispositions of males and females can be observed in all species, that's nature, get over it.

FortySeven

I've yet to come to any logical reason as to why children should not be allowed typical gender roles. They have served us well since the dawn of time, what exactly are we hoping to achieve with this nonsense?

silverharp

FortySeven wrote: »

I've yet to come to any logical reason as to why children should not be allowed typical gender roles. They have served us well since the dawn of time, what exactly are we hoping to achieve with this nonsense?

the rugby players in school wont pick on future male feminists or something because they will have given up Rugby for knitting :pac:

Outlaw Pete

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

There are biological differences between girls and boys that make them develop differently physically and cognitively, this has an effect on the things that they are interested in and general behaviour. Environmental factors may be partially responsible but the underlying biology is still there and predominant. Different behaviours and predispositions of males and females can be observed in all species, that's nature, get over it.

Come on, Jimmy. Biology has little to do with it and you know it. That's just patriarchal propaganda!

What Does It Mean To 'Throw Like A Girl'?

In schoolyards and streets, for as long as most of us can remember, “You throw like a little girl!” has been a common insult, almost always directed at a male. In philosophy, the phrase often leads to the consideration of an influential essay in feminist literature, “Throwing Like a Girl,” by the political philosopher Iris Marion Young, who died in 2006. Her essay, first published in 1980 in Human Studies, and reprinted often since, deconstructs this trope to analyze the patriarchal and essentialist assumptions that give the insult its sting.

The act of throwing is an aggressive one, a projecting outward — like shooting an arrow from a bow or a bullet from a gun — or martial, like throwing a punch. The thrown object aims to hit something, or someone, or at least a strategic mark. It’s not outlandish to think the act first sprung from hunting, with a rock thrown at prey. None of these characteristics, at least within the parameters Young describes, are even remotely associated in our culture with the “feminine.”

Young acknowledged that “throwing like a girl” is an observable phenomenon. The “girlie throw” results from a restricted use of lateral space that tends to come only from the localized part of the body that is doing the action — the hand and forearm — and rarely uses the whole arm, the whole body, or the extended space around the body that is necessary to execute the throw.

Women “tend to concentrate our effort on those parts of the body most immediately connected to the task,” she writes, and do not “bring to the task the power of the shoulder, which is necessary for its efficient performance.” Think of the woman as she passes the pickle jar to the man to open. The inability to not open the jar has nothing to do with inherent strength, Young argues, but has to do the utilization of the entire body for the task, something that is not rooted in anatomical or biological “limitations,” but the whole social, political and aesthetic history of how females come to learn to “be” their bodies in space and time.

Women’s movements tend to be reserved, protective, and reactive betraying that “the woman experiences herself as rooted and enclosed.” The experience of female embodiment in sexist society closes space, time and the imagined future possibilities of becoming and achievement. It is a closure not just of the body, but of the mind and will. “Feminine existence experiences the body as a mere thing — a fragile thing, which must be picked up and coaxed into movement, a thing that exists as looked at and acted upon,” Young writes.

The female body on display, as is the case with athletes, becomes another commodity in the economy of male gazes.

In Young’s conception, to “throw like a girl” has nothing to do with some mysterious female essence that prevents girls from throwing balls or being athletic, but has its “source in the particular situation of women as conditioned by their sexist oppression in contemporary society.” “Throwing like a girl” is a result of the way that females learn to be in their bodies and learn to move in patriarchal space. “Women in sexist society are physically handicapped.”

Sn@kebite

It's a bit of a loop -the-loop really.

Men build our own organisations. Feminism tells men it's sexist, men should engage with feminism and feminism is tolerant of discussing male issues. So then men start a discussion on male issues in front of feminists, feminism accuses said men of derailing feminism. "Feminism isn't about men, stop thinking it's all about you, go build your own organisations to work on your own problems".

At what point does it become a parody?

Issues regarding :
-father's rights,
-boys lacking in school,
-unemplyment rates in young men higher than young women,
-lack of services and supports for men/boys, (homelessness, mental health, male victims of various abuse forms) Current services are usually designed through a female lens.
-prejudices against men such as male domestic violence sufferers (prejudices as in assumption man was battering his partner she was violent in self-defense (ironically a viewpoint held by feminism campaigners)),
-anti-male stereotyping in media (father bashing in commercials especially that children watch or prejudices as the violent male),
-body image and eating disorder issues increasing in boys

etc...

these issues will be and to an increasing degree are being discussed by men's groups especially as father's rights groups spread out into various narratives.

It is pretentious to think feminism is about this, it isn't about male issues, it's about female issues. Sure if it was interested wouldn't we hear feminists mentioning these issues? Feminism does not have to be about men's issues and does not owe men help on male issues, but it does owe not to say it is doing something it isn't.

py2006

The thread should close on that one Snakebite

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

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.

Of course you and I agree privilege is a concept that needs to be addressed. The fine men of this forum are generally dismissive of the notion of privilege. You used concept to have a go at a woman and generalised to feminists. Funny enough, the concept was easy to understand for them under that circumstance.

steddyeddy wrote:

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.

The interesting thing is that privilege is seen by those who are disadvantage by not having it. And the biggest cause of inequality is the inequality that affects the individual. You have wealthy birth as a hobby horse and guess what privilege you notice in others, wealth at birth. Guess what the biggest cause of inequalities to you personally.. wealth at birth.

steddyeddy wrote:

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.

Subject choice is influenced by gender. At the edges where you have boys/ girls schools. See how many all girls schools do applied maths, economics, agricultural science, and how many boys schools offer home economics etc. Rephrase in terms of socioeconomics and I'm sure you'll understand.

Is it possible that there's more inequality than the one that affects you personally?

El_Duderino 09

pumpkin4life wrote:

C'mon. Don't sexually assault or rape people. Every 18 year old knows this.

Consent isn't a clear cut concept.

What about the common occurrence of one or both parties being on drugs? Can you give consent on drugs? Should all cases of sex on drugs be considered consensual? Does the concept of consent apply when on drugs? Is sex without consent always rape?

What if one party gives consent and then changes their mind? What's the protocol for withdrawing consent? Can you simply say 'stop'? Do you have to struggle to show you've withdrawn consent?

Consent isn't simple. If an 18 year old thinks it's easy, then its probably because they haven't even thought about it.

Zulu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The fine men of this forum are generally dismissive of the notion of privilege.... Funny enough, the concept was easy to understand for them under that circumstance.

You appear to be confusing the understanding of a concept to the application of that concept.
Consider the boogie man: I understand what the boogie man is. Does it exist? Is it something I believe is under my bed?

FortySeven

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Consent isn't a clear cut concept.

What about the common occurrence of one or both parties being on drugs? Can you give consent on drugs? Should all cases of sex on drugs be considered consensual? Does the concept of consent apply when on drugs? Is sex without consent always rape?

What if one party gives consent and then changes their mind? What's the protocol for withdrawing consent? Can you simply say 'stop'? Do you have to struggle to show you've withdrawn consent?

Consent isn't simple. If an 18 year old thinks it's easy, then its probably because they haven't even thought about it.

I don't doubt for one second that most men who commit rapes know at the time that they are commiting rape.

These kind of scenarios are rare. Most men and women work around this daily. Hell, I've had sex in some hell of a states. Many times the other party in just as bad shape. I've woken women up by going down on them. Risky business it seems these days.

It isn't though. Most women wouldn't cry rape. It's sex. It's fun.

By some of these feminists rules I am a serial rapist yet I've never had any complaints.

The only classes boys need to prepare them for uni is to avoid the girls with blue hair and piercings. Job done.

Zulu

FortySeven wrote: »

The only classes boys need to prepare them for uni is to avoid the girls with blue hair and piercings. Job done.

lol!

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

You appear to be confusing the understanding of a concept to the application of that concept. Consider the boogie man: I understand what the boogie man is. Does it exist? Is it something I believe is under my bed?

Ok. The other posters will disagree with you on that point because they're loathe to be hypocrites*

My observation is that the word 'privilage' can induce a torrent of responses to he affect that privilage is a bullsh1t concept. It can also get a half dozen 'thanks', but only if it's used to bash feminism.

steddyeddy wrote:

My experience with feminisim is a lady from one of the top private schools in the country telling a group of us at UCD we were priviliged. Look at your own privilige dear and sort out that far bigger inequality without targeting others.

This post got 6 thanks and zero challenges to the concept of feminism.

*Obviously nobody will actually challenge your privilage-boogie man analogy, the same way they didn't challenge the notion of privilege when it was used as a stick to beat feminism.

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. The other posters will disagree with you on that point because they're loathe to be hypocrites*

My observation is that the word 'privilage' can induce a torrent of responses to he affect that privilage is a bullsh1t concept. It can also get a half dozen 'thanks', but only if it's used to bash feminism.



This post got 6 thanks and zero challenges to the concept of feminism.

*Obviously nobody will actually challenge your privilage-boogie man analogy, the same way they didn't challenge the notion of privilege when it was used as a stick to beat feminism.

I'll get back to you in the morning but I take it you disagree with privilege based on parental wealth? Selection based on wealth in education is wrong?

El_Duderino 09

FortySeven wrote:

I don't doubt for one second that most men who commit rapes know at the time that they are commiting rape.

Try answering the questions I asked in the post above. Should be simple for you.

FortySeven wrote:

These kind of scenarios are rare. Most men and women work around this daily. Hell, I've had sex in some hell of a states. Many times the other party in just as bad shape. I've woken women up by going down on them. Risky business it seems these days.

People having sex while drunk is rare? Are you sure? You said yourself you had sex in some hell of a state so it's not/wasn't uncommon for you at least. I also think people are more likely to have sex with strangers while on drugs of one kind or another do consent is at keast something to consider.

How does consent work when you're in done hell of a state?

FortySeven wrote:

The only classes boys need to prepare them for uni is to avoid the girls with blue hair and piercings. Job done.

Just demonstrating the type of queues men and women are given about what's acceptable gender behaviour?

Renegade Mechanic

Zulu wrote: »

lol!

Danger hair? Then beware....

It's the female equivalent of white runners and peaked caps

El_Duderino 09

steddyeddy wrote:

I'll get back to you in the morning but I take it you disagree with privilege based on parental wealth? Selection based on wealth in education is wrong?

I agree with you on both of those points. Others in this forum don't even believe in the concept of privilege, at least they didn't believe in it until you used privilege as a stick to beat feminism. A simple anecdote about a privileged woman got 6 thanks. Doesn't make sense to me but there you have it.

FortySeven

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Try answering the questions I asked in the post above. Should be simple for you.



People having sex while drunk is rare? Are you sure? You said yourself you had sex in some hell of a state so it's not/wasn't uncommon for you at least. I also think people are more likely to have sex with strangers while on drugs of one kind or another do consent is at keast something to consider.

How does consent work when you're in done hell of a state?



Just demonstrating the type of queues men and women are given about what's acceptable gender behaviour?

People having sex on drugs and drink is more the norm than not I would gamble. Especially in college. People crying rape is rare. I've had a lot of sex in my life and I have to assume everyone I know is getting the same. Not one of them has been accused of rape. They've done it everywhere with everyone on everything. No rape allegations.

I have had sex on every common recreational drug (and then some) except heroin. No need to concern yourself with consent confusion here. You are much more compus than you would be when drunk.

(Unless you're talking rophypnol and ghb etc. Again, these are used to enable rape and the rapist knows what they are doing.)

Consent works when in a hell of a state probably millions of times a week. In bedrooms, pub toilets, alley ways, parks, couches and back seats of cars. People love to get drunk and **** each other. It's just not an issue.

It's an issue for feminists looking for a platform to cry victim. As I said in the post above, we need to teach our sons to run like hell from these Looney tunes.

I'm not sure what your last paragraph means?

FortySeven

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree with you on both of those points. Others in this forum don't even believe in the concept of privilege, at least they didn't believe in it until you used privilege as a stick to beat feminism. A simple anecdote about a privileged woman got 6 thanks. Doesn't make sense to me but there you have it.

Are you saying men have privileges? If so, what are they? How can I go about utilising this privilige? You see, what use is something you don't know you have?

It's like saying someone is well off because they have a tenner stuck to the sole of their shoe that they don't know about.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

What about the common occurrence of one or both parties being on drugs? Can you give consent on drugs? Should all cases of sex on drugs be considered consensual? Does the concept of consent apply when on drugs? Is sex without consent always rape?
What if one party gives consent and then changes their mind? What's the protocol for withdrawing consent? Can you simply say 'stop'? Do you have to struggle to show you've withdrawn consent?

FortySeven wrote:

People having sex on drugs and drink is more the norm than not I would gamble. Especially in college. People crying rape is rare. I've had a lot of sex in my life and I have to assume everyone I know is getting the same. Not one of them has been accused of rape. They've done it everywhere with everyone on everything. No rape allegations.

A minute ago you said these circumstances are rare, now you're saying sex on drugs is more the norm than not. Sooo, is sex on drugs common or not?

I'd love if you'd answer the simple questions about consent on drugs. I'm limiting it to drugs because I'm sure we agree about clear cut cases of forced penetration and using date rape drugs. I'd imagine the majority of marginal cases arise when people are on drugs (including booze obviously)

FortySeven wrote:

I have had sex on every common recreational drug (and then some) except heroin. No need to concern yourself with consent confusion here. You are much more compus than you would be when drunk.

I'm including drunk people so if it helps to limit it to alcohol, feel free to do that.

FortySeven wrote:

(Unless you're talking rophypnol and ghb etc. Again, these are used to enable rape and the rapist knows what they are doing.)

I'm specifically not talking about these cases because I'm sure we agree on them.

FortySeven wrote:

Consent works when in a hell of a state probably millions of times a week. In bedrooms, pub toilets, alley ways, parks, couches and back seats of cars. People love to get drunk and **** each other. It's just not an issue.

Oh I'm sure it works great Almost all the time. The times it goes wrong are the subject if discussion. That's why I jeep asking you to address the questions about consent because that's the crux if the issue. You keep saying it's simple so it should be simple for you to answer the few questions I asked.

El_Duderino 09

FortySeven wrote:

Are you saying men have privileges? If so, what are they? How can I go about utilising this privilige? You see, what use is something you don't know you have?

I said the notion of men having privileges is likely to receive criticism. When privilege as used to oppose a feminist, it received 6 thanks.

FortySeven wrote:

It's like saying someone is well off because they have a tenner stuck to the sole of their shoe that they don't know about.

No it would be like being born wealthy and not knowing everyone else didn't have the same experiences you have had - just like the woman in Steddyeddy's example

Outlaw Pete

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

FortySeven

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A minute ago you said these circumstances are rare, now you're saying sex on drugs is more the norm than not. Sooo, is sex on drugs common or not?

I'd love if you'd answer the simple questions about consent on drugs. I'm limiting it to drugs because I'm sure we agree about clear cut cases of forced penetration and using date rape drugs. I'd imagine the majority of marginal cases arise when people are on drugs (including booze obviously)



I'm including drunk people so if it helps to limit it to alcohol, feel free to do that.



I'm specifically not talking about these cases because I'm sure we agree on them.



Oh I'm sure it works great Almost all the time. The times it goes wrong are the subject if discussion. That's why I jeep asking you to address the questions about consent because that's the crux if the issue. You keep saying it's simple so it should be simple for you to answer the few questions I asked.

Sex on drugs is common as muck. I was at it myself just last week. I never said sex on drink and drugs was rare. That would be an incredibly foolish statement. You appear to have read me wrong.

Rape allegations because of confusion over consent are rare. (As in 'these circumstances')

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you are not a drug user. I have taken every drug I could get and had sex on all of them with partners who were on the same or other drugs. The question of consent has never come up because you are well aware of what you are doing.

Alcohol is a different story. This is a very powerful drug and causes more issues than any illegal substance. People pass out, people do things they regret.

Consent arguments in these cases are he said/she said so no amount of training or teaching will protect a man from a regretful woman who cries rape. That's what it boils down to.

We all know to stop if she says stop. We all know not to have sex with someone who is unconscious. We don't know how she is going to feel about it in the morning. Being on drugs doesn't change any of this, being drunk is a difficult one because a judge may well decide that the girl you thought was fine was in fact impaired.

The fact you were also impaired doesn't matter here. You are now a rapist.

I'm not claiming consent is not a grey area in these situations.

I'm saying women are free to go out and get as drunk as they feel and have sex with abandon and no responsibility. Men? We have to be very ****ing careful out there. We have ALL the responsibilities and no protection from regret.

If that's what they are teaching in these consent clases then I'm all for them but it isn't. They're teaching boys how to be scared, how to be good little lap dogs for our new female overlords.

brickmauser

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I said the notion of men having privileges is likely to receive criticism. When privilege as used to oppose a feminist, it received 6 thanks.



No it would be like being born wealthy and not knowing everyone else didn't have the same experiences you have had - just like the woman in Steddyeddy's example

You just have a skewed ideological picture of how the world works that's all.

Christians think there is a spiritual battle between heaven and hell going on in the world.

Marxists think there is a class struggle.

The extreme right everything in terms of race.

Your conspiracy theory is rich white males are at top and black lesbians in wheelchairs are at the lowest rank of the pyramid.

David Icke thinks the world is run by lizards from another dimension masquerading as our human rulers.

It's all barmy nonsense.

FortySeven

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I said the notion of men having privileges is likely to receive criticism. When privilege as used to oppose a feminist, it received 6 thanks.



No it would be like being born wealthy and not knowing everyone else didn't have the same experiences you have had - just like the woman in Steddyeddy's example

I was born in the UK, great nation, world beater, inventive, strong, rich and educated but ngumba was born in the Congo, war torn, disease ridden, infested, poor and uneducated.

That gives me privilege?

Jimmy Garlic

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I said the notion of men having privileges is likely to receive criticism. When privilege as used to oppose a feminist, it received 6 thanks.

What ''privilege'' did he use? As far as I can see he just posted a comment on a forum. Freedom of speech is a right that we all have, not a privilege. I think that you are just going around saying that men are privileged just for the sake of it. You are not providing any evidence to back up your claims.

brickmauser

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

What ''privilege'' did he use? As far as I can see he just posted a comment on a forum. Freedom of speech is a right that we all have, not a privilege. I think that you are just going around saying that men are privileged just for the sake of it. You are not providing any evidence to back up your claims.

Feminist use circular logic. They propose barmy theories. The theories get criticized or blown out of the water by facts. They double down on their theories because when their position is attacked that proves them right?

steddyeddy

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I agree with you on both of those points. Others in this forum don't even believe in the concept of privilege, at least they didn't believe in it until you used privilege as a stick to beat feminism. A simple anecdote about a privileged woman got 6 thanks. Doesn't make sense to me but there you have it.

Again you disagree with privilege in education based on wealth? One of my points related to double standards regarding privilege. You can't disagree with gender selection and endorse wealth selection in education. Both are outside your control.

Do you disagree with different schools for the rich and the poor?

Jimmy Garlic

brickmauser wrote: »

They double down on their theories because when their position is attacked that proves them right?

I suppose any challenge to their dogma is seen as ''male aggression'' or whatever. We have seen it so many times, when challenged they go into victim mode and try to portray the challenge as an attack.