Anti-male movement

py2006

I didn't answer your question fully, as I thought it odd you ask and rather silly. I preferred to highlight something which is an example of a point I made above.

You're first question was, 'do I want to see more 'anti-women' articles. The obvious answer is no. (Is there that many in mainstream?)
The alternative you offer is censorship of anti male articles. Hmmm, I'd like to see equality of outcomes when it comes to articles generalising and vilifying genders.

Middle Man

Wibbs wrote: »

Contrary angles to feminism yes, anti woman no. You writing "anti-women/feminist" as if it's the same thing is part of the problem. Can't criticise feminism because of course that's anti woman. Which is a patent nonsense.

Indeed, anti-feminism and anti-female are two very different things - IMO feminism is nowadays more about misandry than it is about the actual welfare of women.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

Contrary angles to feminism yes, anti woman no. You writing "anti-women/feminist" as if it's the same thing is part of the problem. Can't criticise feminism because of course that's anti woman. Which is a patent nonsense.

Critiques of feminism are so broad in these threads that you would have plenty of scope. Earlier in this thread feminism was derided for offering support for men to be masculine outdid the knuckle dragging well-ard geeza and flashy Trumpian power man. Posters disagreed with the support offered to men, but then agreed that support is needed to foster confidence in masculinity. Cutting off young men's noses to spite feminists. Humm.

Then there was attention on the alarming rates of men's mental
Illness and suicide. Agreement that the taboo on men's mental illness is a barrier to getting help, and finally there was criticism of Breslin for actually doing something about men's mental health by discussing it openly.

I'd be interested to know what would be in these articles on alternative views on feminism. Id be more interested to know if it would have anything to do with helping men rather than point scoring against feminists.

All this while men suffer mental
Illness and suicide. Fiddle on, dear Niro.

Priorities, lads.

Triceratops Ballet

Wibbs wrote: »

Sure T, but that's really no indication of the validity of the position put forward. They're just following a particular political worldview. As I said any man/woman/dog on the street that with a straight face claims that Ireland is "an extreme patriarchal society" is only singing from one hymn sheet, a received one and a near farcical one with it.

Agreed if anything I think Irish society has been more balanced than say the US or UK even due to having been both a matriarchal and patriarchal society at various points in history, something that I'm worried we're losing with the import of "gender wars" from other societies. As a reasonable grown up, I know enough to know that this gender war isn't a thing that exists in the real world, most mature adults don't pay any mind to it and take people as they meet then and make judgements based on that.

My worry is that there is a huge chunk of the population, say under 25, for whom the stuff they read and see online (where all of this gender baiting happens) becomes what they think of the world, for that age group the internet is as much as part of their life as anything else and it is the real world to them, they socialise there, they learn there, and if the internet says they're at war with the opposite gender then, why wouldn't they believe it. The problem is the voices of moderation aren't common or popular online, so Feminist and MRA threads become louder and louder echo chambers causing each side to become further entrenched in their own beliefs, they then take this into the world and walk around with shoulders full of chips, talking about how they're each oppressed and then it's a pissing contest to see who's more oppressed

Wibbs wrote: »

Go back in time when the BS that women were the poor shadow of a man in reason and society was in full force. Many, if not the majority of women at that time supported that. The suffragettes got just as much flak from their fellow women as from men. They were very much the minority(and were looking for actual parity, even when it would go against them. These women actively looked for things like equality in capital crimes where a woman may be hanged like men were for the same crime. A parity that seems to have been lost in translation since). Hell even today women converts to the more radical ends of Islam outnumber male converts four to one. They appear to most western liberals as turkeys voting for Christmas, but vote many do.

I don't know about this, does not knowing or accepting that you're not equal mean you shouldn't be treated as equal? Yes the suffragettes were in the minority at the time, but that doesn't mean that they weren't right in their fight, sometimes the majority can be wrong and it takes a minority to change and push. It's always easy to be angry at or deride those who want to upset the apple cart, if you've never had the freedom to be the agent of your own fortune, then the possibility that a group of women shouting loudly are going to upset the status quo will no doubt be scary.

Wibbs wrote: »

Good question T. I'd say for a start, let's drop the imported from the US gender war and gender division ballsology for a start. And throw out the social sciences guff that is anything but social and certainly not science. Look at this with actual objectivity. Look at this as a human issue, with acknowledged general differences between us when they exist. Lose the "toxic masculinity" BS. Nobody of reason would dare to push the notion of "toxic femininity", but men are apparently fair game.

Toxic masculinity is such an unfortunate phrase, I don't know an alternative that would achieve what the idea of toxic masculinity is supposed to define. It needs to be removed from use, along with phrases like "man-up" or "don't be a girl about it" funny though I think your definition of modern feminism is what I would call toxic femininity, reverting women to a position of weakness that existed before suffrage reducing women to the ideals of traditional femininity. Traditional masculinity and femininity are bullsh1t traps, and they're not real. Yes men and women are biologically different but outside of biological constraints that shouldn't be a limiting factor for either, a man who takes on a nurturing role as the primary care giver at home is no less masculine than, I dunno a lumberjack, and a woman working in construction is no less feminine than a housewife. That's the message I think is important. Just be who you are whoever that is, you're not any better or worse than the next person because of it.

I think the idea of feminism as one single ideology is interesting, and incorrect, at it's outset, when there were major barriers to overcome right to vote, work, equal pay, criminalisation of rape within marriage, overturning the marriage ban in civil service then feminism was a single ideal, a group of people operating with a specific belief and aim.

Feminism isn't a political movement anymore, it's an ideology now and the variations in that ideology are many, I would describe myself as a feminist because I believe in all the things outlined above, but I don't agree with the likes of Louise O'Neill or Una Mullally. I don't hate men, feminism in my opinion is nothing to do with men, it's not about protecting men, it's not about helping men feminism is about women and women only (clue is in the name) I meet plenty of women who describe themselves as feminists who believe all sorts of batsh1t about women, (period art and thinking women are magical life givers blah blah blah) and that is part of feminism for them. I would also describe myself as someone who believes in advancing mens rights, paternity leave,
legal reform around access to children, mental health support services, addressing the issues around such high suicide rates in young men, I'm rambling a bit here but feminism and supporting of mens rights aren't mutually exclusive and thinking of feminism as one set of beliefs and actions is incorrect.

None of this however serves to address the issue at hand, which is how to change the narrative around things like "toxic masculinity" that is not something that will be solved if reasonable people don't open their mouths and try to speak up over the screams of waring anti men/anti women factions.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

I didn't answer your question fully, as I thought it odd you ask and rather silly. I preferred to highlight something which is an example of a point I made above.

You're first question was, 'do I want to see more 'anti-women' articles. The obvious answer is no. (Is there that many in mainstream?)
The alternative you offer is censorship of anti male articles. Hmmm, I'd like to see equality of outcomes when it comes to articles generalising and vilifying genders.

I though it was an easy couple of questions. You don't like the status quo, so what would you like to see? Articles of equal and opposite direction to counteract the ones you don't like, or would you like to see less of the articles you don't like?

Using your own language "I'd like to see equality of outcomes when it comes to articles generalising and vilifying genders". What would that ideally look like?

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I though it was an easy couple of questions. You don't like the status quo, so what would you like to see? Articles of equal and opposite direction to counteract the ones you don't like, or would you like to see less of the articles you don't like?

Using your own language "I'd like to see equality of outcomes when it comes to articles generalising and vilifying genders". What would that ideally look like?

Maybe a couple of questions for yourself here so: do you approve of the current writings of certain journalists and media outlets that paint a very negative view of men? If not what would you do about them?

(Please dont try the "oh what ones would they be ?" lark btw, its been well covered already. If you disagree that theyre actually doing this just flat out say that.)

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I think the idea of feminism as one single ideology is interesting, and incorrect, at it's outset, when there were major barriers to overcome right to vote, work, equal pay, criminalisation of rape within marriage, overturning the marriage ban in civil service then feminism was a single ideal, a group of people operating with a specific belief and aim.

Feminism isn't a political movement anymore, it's an ideology now and the variations in that ideology are many, I would describe myself as a feminist because I believe in all the things outlined above, but I don't agree with the likes of Louise O'Neill or Una Mullally.

At this stage feminists mainly just represent other feminists and dont represent women as a group , they are all quite radical as they seem to be steeped in gender studies which is quite ridiculous looking in from the outside. its more like a victim support group but dangerous to some extent as they get a lot of open doors into education , politics and the media etc

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Maybe a couple of questions for yourself here so: do you approve of the current writings of certain journalists and media outlets that paint a very negative view of men? If not what would you do about them?

Sure. Even though I didn't get straight answers to my simple questions, I'll answer yours.
"do you approve of the current writings of certain journalists and media outlets that paint a very negative view of men?"
No I don't agree with it.

"If not what would you do about them?"
I wouldn't do anything about them. I don't read them so I wouldn't suggest focusing on them at all. I'd support looking at the challenges facing men and focusing on them. I can't stand this idea that feminists are writing nasty things about men so men should write nasty things about feminists. All that might be satisfying to some people but it ignores the supposed purpose- help men with the things that they need help with.

tritium wrote: »

(Please dont try the "oh what ones would they be ?" lark btw, its been well covered already. If you disagree that theyre actually doing this just flat out say that.)

No need for that. I answered your questions in good faith.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Maybe a couple of questions for yourself here so: do you approve of the current writings of certain journalists and media outlets that paint a very negative view of men? If not what would you do about them?

Sure. Even though I didn't get straight answers to my simple questions, I'll answer yours.
"do you approve of the current writings of certain journalists and media outlets that paint a very negative view of men?"
No I don't agree with it.

"If not what would you do about them?"
I wouldn't do anything about them. I don't read them so I wouldn't suggest focusing on them at all. I'd support looking at the challenges facing men and focusing on them. I can't stand this idea that feminists are writing nasty things about men so men should write nasty things about feminists. All that might be satisfying to some people but it ignores the supposed purpose- help men with the things that they need help with.

tritium wrote: »

(Please dont try the "oh what ones would they be ?" lark btw, its been well covered already. If you disagree that theyre actually doing this just flat out say that.)

No need for that. I answered your questions in good faith.

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

At this stage feminists mainly just represent other feminists and dont represent women as a group , they are all quite radical as they seem to be steeped in gender studies which is quite ridiculous looking in from the outside. its more like a victim support group but dangerous to some extent as they get a lot of open doors into education , politics and the media etc

As I said I'd describe myself as a feminist and as such I'm telling you that's not true. I am not radical in my views I don't know what gender studies even is.

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

As I said I'd describe myself as a feminist and as such I'm telling you that's not true. I am not radical in my views I don't know what gender studies even is.

Im not doubting you , but there is too much a collegial attitude where by the time you hear these ideas expressed in the media its all fairly unified and you don't hear "centrist feminists" to coin a phrase being asked to disavow the Bindles or the dulallys of the world.


As you mentioned "toxic masculinity" it reminded me of something I posted before where a student in a UK school snapped the slide below. they have escaped into the community also the kid followed up with a question about "toxic femininity" only to be told that that isn't a thing....

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Earlier in this thread feminism was derided for offering support for men

I'd continue to deride it. What business is it of "feminists" - because as PB noted above "feminism in my opinion is nothing to do with men, it's not about protecting men, it's not about helping men, feminism is about women and women only (clue is in the name)". An opinion I would share.

to be masculine outdid the knuckle dragging well-ard geeza and flashy Trumpian power man.

Yeah. let's run all the way to the extremes. Not.

Posters disagreed with the support offered to men, but then agreed that support is needed to foster confidence in masculinity.

Nope. Merely suggesting that taking advice from feminist ideology about how they feel men should behave is questionable at best.

Cutting off young men's noses to spite feminists. Humm.

Nope. Again.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Agreed if anything I think Irish society has been more balanced than say the US or UK even due to having been both a matriarchal and patriarchal society at various points in history, something that I'm worried we're losing with the import of "gender wars" from other societies. As a reasonable grown up, I know enough to know that this gender war isn't a thing that exists in the real world, most mature adults don't pay any mind to it and take people as they meet then and make judgements based on that.

My worry is that there is a huge chunk of the population, say under 25, for whom the stuff they read and see online (where all of this gender baiting happens) becomes what they think of the world, for that age group the internet is as much as part of their life as anything else and it is the real world to them, they socialise there, they learn there, and if the internet says they're at war with the opposite gender then, why wouldn't they believe it. The problem is the voices of moderation aren't common or popular online, so Feminist and MRA threads become louder and louder echo chambers causing each side to become further entrenched in their own beliefs, they then take this into the world and walk around with shoulders full of chips, talking about how they're each oppressed and then it's a pissing contest to see who's more oppressed

+1000.

cavalcade

jsms88 wrote: »

Everyone knows the IT bubble burst years ago! Looks at the demand for computer science courses in college. Look at the collapse in points needed to get in this century. Look at the way multinational IT companies like Dell fled to Eastern Europe. Great, it might be reviving in the last few years but if I was employed in IT over the last 20 years it was hardly a stable environment.

Usually refrain from posting but this is amazing.
What other field can a graduate enter with a 6 figure salary today (while having employers fight over them) ?

Sleepy

I've never seen a grad get a 6 figure salary in Ireland. Maybe in the US (a friend landed something in that region a year or two out of college in Boston) but I've never seen it in Ireland.

Triceratops Ballet

Sleepy wrote: »

I've never seen a grad get a 6 figure salary in Ireland. Maybe in the US (a friend landed something in that region a year or two out of college in Boston) but I've never seen it in Ireland.

me either, and I've hired grads in Tech!

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote:

I'd continue to deride it. What business is it of "feminists"? [...]

What business is it of feminists to offer support in an area that we all agree support is needed? That's a very Strange question given that the objective is supposedly to help men be confident in a range of masculine traits. It's a much less strange question when you consider that the overriding objective is to have a go at feminism, helping men is a distance second place priority.

All we've seen is the blurb for the course which was a vague mission statement that said the things posters have agree with. And you would oppose it because the feminists are doing the work? Priorities

Wibbs wrote:

Yeah. let's run all the way to the extremes. Not.

I'm surprised you're quite so sensitive to hyperbole given this...

Wibbs wrote:

I've often said that modern "feminism" can be reduced to this; women are always victims and men are always to blame. [...] The "patriarchy" is to blame. It's still men's fault. The poor dears. And only by becoming quasi women with dicks banging drums in a forest to excise their "toxic masculinity" can they be released from this "oppression".[...]

Wibbs wrote:

Nope. Merely suggesting that taking advice from feminist ideology about how they feel men should behave is questionable at best.

You didn't question it. You dismissed it and created a subtext about men becoming quasi women with dicks banging drums in a forest. You didn't need any actual information about how they were going to speak to the men to form that image, just your imagination and a prejudice against feminism.

Wibbs wrote:

Nope. Again.

I can't argue with that - because it's not an argument.

If your goal were to help men, the narrative would be focused on helping men, not on feminism. But, whatever makes you happy.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If your goal were to help men, the narrative would be focused on helping men, not on feminism. But, whatever makes you happy.

What's your goal?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote:

What's your goal?

Sure I'll answer the question. Among other things, my goal is finding the issues that matter to men and then finding solutions. I'm also for finding the issues that matter to women and finding solutions. I really dislike the men Vs women narrative the seems so appealing to so many people the Goal appears to be point scoring against feminism for lots of people

Ok so what's your goal?

mzungu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What business is it of feminists to offer support in an area that we all agree support is needed? That's a very Strange question given that the objective is supposedly to help men be confident in a range of masculine traits. It's a much less strange question when you consider that the overriding objective is to have a go at feminism, helping men is a distance second place priority.

A lot of the things I see in the media seem to be coming from men (no idea if they are feminists), but I am not aware of any feminist movement for mental health in men, but assuming one does exist, then it depends on the support. If it is loaded with things like "toxic masculinity" and the like, I would say it is less about support and more about pushing a political project. I don't see how that is going to be of any help to somebody with mental illness. Outside of that, surely any support wouldn't be a feminism thing, but more of a human thing? If a woman shows concern over a man with mental health difficulties (or vice versa) then surely it counts as human compassion as opposed to being part of a political movement?

Just to move away from feminism, a case in point regarding media mental health and ideology is that talk going on at Electric Picnic mentioned earlier in the thread. I noted that one of the men (that I know of), Michael Harding, has written opinion pieces in the IT bemoaning his masculinity. To give an example from the "How to be a man" series of articles:

But what he didn’t tell the woman over breakfast was that as a child he longed to be a girl. He trembled in their company. He feared them and worshipped them.

Although he didn’t grow into a girl. He didn’t even grow into a stinging bee or a boxer. He just became another patriarch, like a giant cockroach in an armchair. And as he got older he imagined a faint metallic tang hanging in the air around him, as if he had been working all day under a jeep, cleaning the oil filters.
He went to the leisure centre and soaked in the steam room to clear away the smell. He groomed himself with perfume and plucked his eyebrows. Because he would not have been bothered if he smelled like a buck goat, or even a stallion. They bleed too, like humans. But not a rusting car. And sometimes masculinity felt mechanical. As if his heart were made of metal.

That was what patriarchy did to him over the years. Except that in every single dream that ambushed him at night, he changed into a butterfly and cried out – This is me! This too is me! But he didn’t tell her that over breakfast. Which was a pity, because she might have listened.

Link: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/there-s-no-avoiding-what-makes-me-a-man-i-m-just-selfish-1.2798507

He is, of course, more than entitled to his opinion, but I have no idea how this is in any way supposed to be helpful. On one hand I think it is good about putting this stuff out-there, but on the other I don't agree with the scope of the conversation only existing within the "masculinity is bad so we must reject it approach". That is not an honest conversation, it is more or less an unchallenged political broadcast. I am all for getting rid of harmful masculine stereotypes and for challenging the idea of traditional male roles and expectations. However, the above takes no heed of men that are comfortable in their own style of traditional masculinity. It appears to be a "one size fits all" approach, but what about those who don't feel comfortable going that route?

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What business is it of feminists to offer support in an area that we all agree support is needed? That's a very Strange question given that the objective is supposedly to help men be confident in a range of masculine traits.

You answered your own question. What the hell does feminist thought and feminists have to do with telling men how they should feel or think. You're so invested in this politic it doesn't seem to compute for you. OK, let's switch it around. Would you be happy if avowed men's rights types who led with the lingo of that movement were offering support to women with mental illnesses and/or advising them of how they should feel and think? I seriously doubt it. Rightfully too.

It's a much less strange question when you consider that the overriding objective is to have a go at feminism, helping men is a distance second place priority.

Only in your on the defensive "oh noes, feminism is in the cross hairs" mindset.

I'm surprised you're quite so sensitive to hyperbole given this...

I stand by my statement that "modern "feminism" can be reduced to this; women are always victims and men are always to blame. Try finding me an example where it doesn't. I dare you. I double dare you.

You didn't question it. You dismissed it and created a subtext about men becoming quasi women with dicks banging drums in a forest.

It's more me being offhand TBH.

You didn't need any actual information about how they were going to speak to the men to form that image,

Lest you forget, these guys kick off with "We live in an extreme patriarchal society". A patent nonsense save for in the heads of the more extreme feminist movement. Never mind their near given definitions of "true masculine power". It'll be again singing from the feminist hymn sheet. No imagination required on my part. You just know what you're going to get. Of the names on the list the only one I personally recognise is the Michael Harding chap. If memory serves(and often it rebuffs me) he did an interview on RTE where he mentioned he was shocked well past middle age to find that women had voices and opinions, because he overheard women talking freely on their mobile phones. Jesus. That's not "toxic masculinity" that's just being daft. Given his undoubted skills as a playwright that explore human emotions it also smells like BS.

a prejudice against feminism.

Guilty as charged. 20 years ago I would have happily said I was a feminist if asked. Before the cross eyed increasingly daft and increasingly divisive nonsense spewing out of American gender studies courses spread beyond the gates. Today, I have found most people, women and men who would also say they're a feminist are actually feminists of 20 years ago. Minus the interim idiocy. For me anyone, man woman, who has done their homework regarding current feminism and still agrees with it is at best deluded. When I see "patriarchy" and "rape culture" etc being trotted out I view it with the same contempt I reserve for those trotting out "cuck" or "red pill" etc and assume a large degree of daftness in the purveyor.

Pat Mustard

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure I'll answer the question. Among other things, my goal is finding the issues that matter to men and then finding solutions. I'm also for finding the issues that matter to women and finding solutions. I really dislike the men Vs women narrative the seems so appealing to so many people the Goal appears to be point scoring against feminism for lots of people

Ok so what's your goal?

I like to point out utter bullsh1t where I see it.

I like people to back up their points and not lazily and dishonestly refuse to do so on the grounds that they are posting from their phones.

BrokenArrows

jsms88 wrote: »

Do you mean paying a science teacher more than a geography teacher for doing the same amount of work?

A science teacher should certainly be paid more than a geography teacher.
One subject requires much more understanding than the other.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure I'll answer the question. Among other things, my goal is finding the issues that matter to men and then finding solutions. I'm also for finding the issues that matter to women and finding solutions. I really dislike the men Vs women narrative the seems so appealing to so many people the Goal appears to be point scoring against feminism for lots of people

Man the blinkers are wide indeed. Feminism, particularly current feminism is hell bent on pushing the men versus women narrative. Everything good is feminine, everything bad is masculine. It gets to wear the "toxic" label. When too damned many in the MRA, especially "red pill" crowd trot out the nonsense that women are toxic we rightfully call shenanigans, but apparently men are fair game. Never mind that feminism including at the extreme end gets far more media exposure and acceptance.

mzungu wrote: »

Just to move away from feminism, a case in point regarding media mental health and ideology is that talk going on at Electric Picnic mentioned earlier in the thread. I noted that one of the men (that I know of), Michael Harding, has written opinion pieces in the IT bemoaning his masculinity. To give an example from the "How to be a man" series of articles:

Good sweet Jesus. What a crock. As you say he's entitled to his opinion and entitled to disseminate that opinion, but peddling BS like that requires an answer. So imagine you're a young lad already inundated with too many images and opinions that tell you that as a man you're not quite formed correctly out of the box, cos patriarchy and attendant nonsense and you're confused. And you rock up to this course and this is the kind of thing you're being told by older men whose guidance you seek? Masculine = bad, patriarchy = bad, because men. Eh no. It's like old style Victorian misogyny in reverse. These days the message for women and girls is you can be whatever you want to be(though it can be a mixed message) and not in spite of your sex but because of it. That someone like him can't even see the problem with his position says a lot. Whereas thundering self hating eejits like this are essentially telling men you can be whatever you can be in spite of your sex. Rev up and get up the yard.

Triceratops Ballet

BrokenArrows wrote: »

A science teacher should certainly be paid more than a geography teacher.
One subject requires much more understanding than the other.

I think the argument for paying teachers of a certain subject more than another is more centred on the value of the output is it not?
To teach both subjects requires a degree in the subject, and the hdip (or the new masters that has replaced the dip) Science teachers aren't inherently smarter, or more understanding of their subject than geography teachers, but science currently has a greater value in the employment market than geography.

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I think the argument for paying teachers of a certain subject more than another is more centred on the value of the output is it not?
To teach both subjects requires a degree in the subject, and the hdip (or the new masters that has replaced the dip) Science teachers aren't inherently smarter, or more understanding of their subject than geography teachers, but science currently has a greater value in the employment market than geography.

I'd argue that a good maths would likely have a higher IQ than either a primary teacher or a home economics teacher. its a rarer ability

El_Duderino 09

mzungu wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What business is it of feminists to offer support in an area that we all agree support is needed? That's a very Strange question given that the objective is supposedly to help men be confident in a range of masculine traits. It's a much less strange question when you consider that the overriding objective is to have a go at feminism, helping men is a distance second place priority.

A lot of the things I see in the media seem to be coming from men (no idea if they are feminists), but I am not aware of any feminist movement for mental health in men, but assuming one does exist, then it depends on the support. If it is loaded with things like "toxic masculinity" and the like, I would say it is less about support and more about pushing a political project. I don't see how that is going to be of any help to somebody with mental illness. Outside of that, surely any support wouldn't be a feminism thing, but more of a human thing? If a woman shows concern over a man with mental health difficulties (or vice versa) then surely it counts as human compassion as opposed to being part of a political movement?

Just to move away from feminism, a case in point regarding media mental health and ideology is that talk going on at Electric Picnic mentioned earlier in the thread. I noted that one of the men (that I know of), Michael Harding, has written opinion pieces in the IT bemoaning his masculinity. To give an example from the "How to be a man" series of articles:

But what he didn’t tell the woman over breakfast was that as a child he longed to be a girl. He trembled in their company. He feared them and worshipped them.

Although he didn’t grow into a girl. He didn’t even grow into a stinging bee or a boxer. He just became another patriarch, like a giant cockroach in an armchair. And as he got older he imagined a faint metallic tang hanging in the air around him, as if he had been working all day under a jeep, cleaning the oil filters.
He went to the leisure centre and soaked in the steam room to clear away the smell. He groomed himself with perfume and plucked his eyebrows. Because he would not have been bothered if he smelled like a buck goat, or even a stallion. They bleed too, like humans. But not a rusting car. And sometimes masculinity felt mechanical. As if his heart were made of metal.

That was what patriarchy did to him over the years. Except that in every single dream that ambushed him at night, he changed into a butterfly and cried out – This is me! This too is me! But he didn’t tell her that over breakfast. Which was a pity, because she might have listened.

Link: https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/there-s-no-avoiding-what-makes-me-a-man-i-m-just-selfish-1.2798507

He is, of course, more than entitled to his opinion, but I have no idea how this is in any way supposed to be helpful. On one hand I think it is good about putting this stuff out-there, but on the other I don't agree with the scope of the conversation only existing within the "masculinity is bad so we must reject it approach". That is not an honest conversation, it is more or less an unchallenged political broadcast. I am all for getting rid of harmful masculine stereotypes and for challenging the idea of traditional male roles and expectations. However, the above takes no heed of men that are comfortable in their own style of traditional masculinity. It appears to be a "one size fits all" approach, but what about those who don't feel comfortable going that route?

We're speaking at cross purposes. I was speaking about the feminist group in relation to discussing masculinity, not mental health.

I do t know anything about that speech in the middle of your post. Do you want to tell me about it in your own words?

So we keep coming back to this question about what happens if a guy is just naturally traditionally masculine. I'm thinking a devil may care, James Dean type, confident, hardy, great with women and has money and power, and is comfortable in his own skin. Same rules apply to that guy as every other person. Best of luck to him as long as he's not harming anyone else and his views as as valid as anyone else in the discussion about finding the issues that matters to him and finding solutions.

So the next question is about how many men fit that description- I'd say probably not that many. The main question is about how many men are comfortable in their masculinity. In reality I'd say there are dozens of masculine traits which men have to varying degrees. I'd say the really important point is to discuss the ways to express themselves with confidence.

I'd say a problem is that some men think that if they're not James Bond then they're failing as a man.

We're all dancing around the idea of masculinity so could you define traditional masculinity? And how many men fit that definition?

El_Duderino 09

Pat Mustard wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure I'll answer the question. Among other things, my goal is finding the issues that matter to men and then finding solutions. I'm also for finding the issues that matter to women and finding solutions. I really dislike the men Vs women narrative the seems so appealing to so many people the Goal appears to be point scoring against feminism for lots of people

Ok so what's your goal?

I like to point out utter bullsh1t where I see it.

I like people to back up their points and not lazily and dishonestly refuse to do so on the grounds that they are posting from their phones.

What are you on about? Who's refusing to do what because they're on their phone?

Assuming you misfired there so. I answered your question in good faith, could you answer the same question? What's your goal? Cheers

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So we keep coming back to this question about what happens if a guy is just naturally traditionally masculine. I'm thinking a devil may care, James Dean type, confident, hardy, great with women and has money and power, and is comfortable in his own skin. Same rules apply to that guy as every other person. Best of luck to him as long as he's not harming anyone else and his views as as valid as anyone else in the discussion about finding the issues that matters to him and finding solutions.

So the next question is about how many men fit that description- I'd say probably not that many. The main question is about how many men are comfortable in their masculinity. In reality I'd say there are dozens of masculine traits which men have to varying degrees. I'd say the really important point is to discuss the ways to express themselves with confidence.

I'd say a problem is that some men think that if they're not James Bond then they're failing as a man.

We're all dancing around the idea of masculinity so could you define traditional masculinity? And how many men fit that definition?

thats an extremely narrow definition to work with, there are a range of ways for men to be successful or competitive.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure I'll answer the question. Among other things, my goal is finding the issues that matter to men and then finding solutions. I'm also for finding the issues that matter to women and finding solutions. I really dislike the men Vs women narrative the seems so appealing to so many people the Goal appears to be point scoring against feminism for lots of people

Man the blinkers are wide indeed. Feminism, particularly current feminism is hell bent on pushing the men versus women narrative. Everything good is feminine, everything bad is masculine. It gets to wear the "toxic" label. When too damned many in the MRA, especially "red pill" crowd trot out the nonsense that women are toxic we rightfully call shenanigans, but apparently men are fair game. Never mind that feminism including at the extreme end gets far more media exposure and acceptance.

That's grand but I'm not sure why you're telling me since its only tangentially related to what I said.

I said I don't like the men vs women narrative. It's just a distracting sideshow from the real issue of solving actual. I take it you don't share my dislike of the men vs women narrative

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

[..] traditionally masculine. I'm thinking a devil may care, James Dean type, confident, hardy, great with women and has money and power, and is comfortable in his own skin.

[...] In reality I'd say there are dozens of masculine traits which men have to varying degrees. I'd say the really important point is to discuss the ways to express themselves with confidence.


We're all dancing around the idea of masculinity so could you define traditional masculinity? And how many men fit that definition?

thats an extremely narrow definition to work with, there are a range of ways for men to be successful or competitive.

Yeah I know. As I said in the post you quoted bit not sure you read " In reality I'd say there are dozens of masculine traits which men have to varying degrees. I'd say the really important point is to discuss the ways to express themselves with confidence. "

How would you define traditional masculinity?