Anti-male movement

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's true but it's moves sideways from the original definition of masculine traits. It started as this "in a very general sense men need to excel at something and have something which is theirs". Then you mentioned fishing. So is wanting to excel at something the masculine trait or is the focus of the area of expertise the masculine part?

If fishing is a masculine trait, then if a woman enjoys fishing is she exhibiting a masculine trait?

if you look at both sexes there are clearly feminised man and mascualised women so we aren't talking about non intersecting venn diagrams. One's interests will be influenced by hormones, brain chemistry etc. I would tend to say that activities which involve "conquering the environment" are a male centered activity or at a minimum innovated by men. A trivial example comes to mind the wing suit sport. I don't know much about it but Ill bet it was a man that flew the first one and the initial innovations were led by groups of men. the fact that women take part in it now is just so but the numbers involved will be low compared to men.
why would this be the case, natural and sex selection over millions of years which is now directed into more modern activities instead of being used to hunt dinosaurs as originally selected for.

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote:

if you look at both sexes there are clearly feminised man and mascualised women so we aren't talking about non intersecting venn diagrams. One's interests will be influenced by hormones, brain chemistry etc. I would tend to say that activities which involve "conquering the environment" are a male centered activity or at a minimum innovated by men. A trivial example comes to mind the wing suit sport. I don't know much about it but Ill bet it was a man that flew the first one and the initial innovations were led by groups of men. the fact that women take part in it now is just so but the numbers involved will be low compared to men. why would this be the case, natural and sex selection over millions of years which is now directed into more modern activities instead of being used to hunt dinosaurs as originally selected for.

Hunt Dinosaurs?!!

Dinosaurs aside I can't buy your definition of masculinity, by that logic the computer programming belongs to women on account of Ada Lovelace, and we all know that's not true.
Also you should talk to the girl guides/ giri scouts about the idea of conquering the outdoors being a masculine thing.

There are plenty of activities that women take up after men because they lack the opportunity, and because the facilities dont cater to them. Golf being one example, going to the pub being another, there are some older bars in Dublin that dont have a ladies loo because women weren't allowed in

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's true but it's moves sideways from the original definition of masculine traits. It started as this "in a very general sense men need to excel at something and have something which is theirs". Then you mentioned fishing. So is wanting to excel at something the masculine trait or is the focus of the area of expertise the masculine part?

If fishing is a masculine trait, then if a woman enjoys fishing is she exhibiting a masculine trait?

if you look at both sexes there are clearly feminised man and mascualised women so we aren't talking about non intersecting venn diagrams. One's interests will be influenced by hormones, brain chemistry etc. I would tend to say that activities which involve "conquering the environment" are a male centered activity or at a minimum innovated by men. A trivial example comes to mind the wing suit sport. I don't know much about it but Ill bet it was a man that flew the first one and the initial innovations were led by groups of men. the fact that women take part in it now is just so but the numbers involved will be low compared to men.
why would this be the case, natural and sex selection over millions of years which is now directed into more modern activities instead of being used to hunt dinosaurs as originally selected for.

Leaving men hunting dinosaurs aside. So when we get down to it, the masculine trait we've identified is to do with interests in activities that involve conquering the environment. The definition doesn't cover behaviour or attitudes within conquering the environment. Does it include things like field sports? Scout groups sound like a masculine activity under your definition. I think you'll agree that's a very broad definition.

Could you say what feminine traits are?

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Hunt Dinosaurs?!!

Dinosaurs aside I can't buy your definition of masculinity, by that logic the computer programming belongs to women on account of Ada Lovelace, and we all know that's not true.
Also you should talk to the girl guides/ giri scouts about the idea of conquering the outdoors being a masculine thing.

There are plenty of activities that women take up after men because they lack the opportunity, and because the facilities dont cater to them. Golf being one example, going to the pub being another, there are some older bars in Dublin that dont have a ladies loo because women weren't allowed in

men wanting to socialise or women wanting to socialise in a public place has a huge overlap so off the top of my head I cant think of any major gender differences. it was probably down to social convention that the sexes were separated somewhat although I think its natural for men and women to want to socialise separately at times, the housewife's "book club" glug glug is the same as me going down to the pub with my mates where its male only company.
you would agree that men biologically take more risk than women? that has been tested , you would see the outwork of that where men tend to dominate risky sports? Motor cycles racing for example.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Leaving men hunting dinosaurs aside. So when we get down to it, the masculine trait we've identified is to do with interests in activities that involve conquering the environment. The definition doesn't cover behaviour or attitudes within conquering the environment. Does it include things like field sports? Scout groups sound like a masculine activity under your definition. I think you'll agree that's a very broad definition.

Could you say what feminine traits are?

again there is going to be an overlap, scouts and girl guides etc we are talking about kids so you have parental involvement and religious overlaps in the past. But looking at kids there are observable difference in how they play, play fighting it typically boyish behaviour down to their higher energy levels than girls and a possible inbuilt need to compete physically against each other. Which then might feed back into boys being more frustrated in education perhaps? where girls are the model behaviour and boys are seen as not adhering to the female standard?

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

men wanting to socialise or women wanting to socialise in a public place has a huge overlap so off the top of my head I cant think of any major gender differences. it was probably down to social convention that the sexes were separated somewhat although I think its natural for men and women to want to socialise separately at times, the housewife's "book club" glug glug is the same as me going down to the pub with my mates where its male only company.
you would agree that men biologically take more risk than women? that has been tested , you would see the outwork of that where men tend to dominate risky sports? Motor cycles racing for example.

yes I could agree that generally speaking women are more risk adverse, so based on that, the masculine trait you're trying to describe is risk taking, rather than being into sports and outdoor activities? because having an interest you're passionate about is definitely not a trait that's exclusively masculine

I would add to this that my example of the pub or golf was not a point about how genders socialise, it was in answer to your point that men tend to blaze the train in certain past times and women only follow when it becomes popular. I was simply pointing out that in some past times this is the case because women were simply not permitted to take part in the specific past time, or that the facilities were not provided for them to do so.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

men wanting to socialise or women wanting to socialise in a public place has a huge overlap so off the top of my head I cant think of any major gender differences. it was probably down to social convention that the sexes were separated somewhat although I think its natural for men and women to want to socialise separately at times, the housewife's "book club" glug glug is the same as me going down to the pub with my mates where its male only company.
you would agree that men biologically take more risk than women? that has been tested , you would see the outwork of that where men tend to dominate risky sports? Motor cycles racing for example.

We're finding more areas of overlap and narrowing the areas of masculinity so we're making progress. I would agree that men (teenagers in particular) tend to enjoy taking risks. In psychology terms they experience an invincibility fallacy where they don't really think about the negative consequences of risks such as driving fast or getting into fights. That's driven by biology and social factors.

Driving too fast and getting into fights are both frowned upon in society. Are those the kind of ways that society is having a go at men?

If anything could be described as negative masculinity it could be young men's tendency to take undue risks which endanger other people. If a lad loves fighting, send him to a boxing club or something similar. I'd say there has never before been such a wide range of clubs and organised activities for young people.

I'm failing to see how these masculine traits are being denigrated in modern society. Is there a movement to prevent boys from conquering their environment that you know of?

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

again there is going to be an overlap, scouts and girl guides etc we are talking about kids so you have parental involvement and religious overlaps in the past. But looking at kids there are observable difference in how they play, play fighting it typically boyish behaviour down to their higher energy levels than girls and a possible inbuilt need to compete physically against each other. Which then might feed back into boys being more frustrated in education perhaps? where girls are the model behaviour and boys are seen as not adhering to the female standard?

I would argue that the difference here is that, little girls are encouraged to be quiet and "play nice", and any girl who plays like the boys is labeled a tomboy ie she's not behaving like a good little girl. There is a certain amount of boisterous behaviour encouraged in little boys, I've seen that in my friends kids, they have a boy (4) and a girl (6) they're both mad as a brush! I've been with them at the playground and the boy lets call him Tom, loves to climb up on things, his sister lets call her Jenny loves to too, so Tom climbs up on this platform to jump off and dad gives him a warning look to say don't do that and says "Tom" in that warning way that parents do Tom jumps anyway and lands and stands up in a superhero pose beaming with pride, dad laughs, Jenny not to be out done by her baby brother climbs up on it too and is met with "Jenny get down from there that's dangerous".
This kind of mixed message disadvantage both in later life, Tom when he wants to be boisterous in school, and the teacher isn't reacting like his dad did smiling despite the chastisement, and Jenny, when she wants to do something that the boys do and she's being told to stand up and be counted, she's afraid to take the chance, because she might get shouted at or discouraged.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

We're finding more areas of overlap and narrowing the areas of masculinity so we're making progress. I would agree that men (teenagers in particular) tend to enjoy taking risks. In psychology terms they experience an invincibility fallacy where they don't really think about the negative consequences of risks such as driving fast or getting into fights. That's driven by biology and social factors.

Driving too fast and getting into fights are both frowned upon in society. Are those the kind of ways that society is having a go at men?

If anything could be described as negative masculinity it could be young men's tendency to take undue risks which endanger other people. If a lad loves fighting, send him to a boxing club or something similar. I'd say there has never before been such a wide range of clubs and organised activities for young people.

I'm failing to see how these masculine traits are being denigrated in modern society. Is there a movement to prevent boys from conquering their environment that you know of?

its why boys are socialised in particular ways to guide this energy into more fruitful pursuits. I said before men are either builders or destroyers , I wouldnt use the same phrase regarding women. Prison rates would indicate where misapplied energy ends up.
If you look at feminist opinions in the media, I would say they take swipes at very physical men. I would also say that male feminists tend do the same and are probably bitter that they were at the rough end of these kids in school or saw them "get the girls" while they were ignored and couldn't compete

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

its why boys are socialised in particular ways to guide this energy into more fruitful pursuits. I said before men are either builders or destroyers , I wouldnt use the same phrase regarding women. Prison rates would indicate where misapplied energy ends up.

But this is still only one trait of masculinity, is this the trait you think is most under attack? What are others, I don't actually think I've ever read anything advising people to take less risks, if anything I've read the opposite.

silverharp wrote: »

If you look at feminist opinions in the media, I would say they take swipes at very physical men. I would also say that male feminists tend do the same and are probably bitter that they were at the rough end of these kids in school or saw them "get the girls" while they were ignored and couldn't compete

I'd say that the feminists you're referring to in the media are taking swipes at men at large and are always careful to not be specific about the men they're going after! Also I believe Niall Breslin is one of these male feminists, I've a hard time believing he's not a very physical man, or had any trouble "getting girls"

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I would argue that the difference here is that, little girls are encouraged to be quiet and "play nice", and any girl who plays like the boys is labeled a tomboy ie she's not behaving like a good little girl. There is a certain amount of boisterous behaviour encouraged in little boys, I've seen that in my friends kids, they have a boy (4) and a girl (6) they're both mad as a brush! I've been with them at the playground and the boy lets call him Tom, loves to climb up on things, his sister lets call her Jenny loves to too, so Tom climbs up on this platform to jump off and dad gives him a warning look to say don't do that and says "Tom" in that warning way that parents do Tom jumps anyway and lands and stands up in a superhero pose beaming with pride, dad laughs, Jenny not to be out done by her baby brother climbs up on it too and is met with "Jenny get down from there that's dangerous".
This kind of mixed message disadvantage both in later life, Tom when he wants to be boisterous in school, and the teacher isn't reacting like his dad did smiling despite the chastisement, and Jenny, when she wants to do something that the boys do and she's being told to stand up and be counted, she's afraid to take the chance, because she might get shouted at or discouraged.

"Tom boy" to me suggests a girl that has more masculine features which again has been tested, amount of hormones exposed to in the womb so I'd say has a biological basis. In such a case the parents shouldn't raise her as a "girly girl" but let her feel more comfortable in her skin by exposing her to something she wants to do. However I don't think you would ever have a situation where more women in the US play American Football than men and if there are female players they would come out of that ~10% pool of more masculanised women, so biological gender would act as a constraint all things being equal

Snickers Man

shopper2011 wrote: »

"Lies Lies and Statistics" - Mark Twain

He said it was Disraeli, actually.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

its why boys are socialised in particular ways to guide this energy into more fruitful pursuits. I said before men are either builders or destroyers , I wouldnt use the same phrase regarding women. Prison rates would indicate where misapplied energy ends up.
If you look at feminist opinions in the media, I would say they take swipes at very physical men. I would also say that male feminists tend do the same and are probably bitter that they were at the rough end of these kids in school or saw them "get the girls" while they were ignored and couldn't compete

So is criminality a male trait then? If their energy isn't channeled into building, it might be channelled into destroying.

Now it's beginning to sound Like you're also shoehorning these guys into masculine roles of rough physical bully who's great with women, vs the less physical bully victim who is ignored by women and is now bitter.

I'd be in favour of fostering confidence in men with traits beyond physique and sexual prowess. If men are being painted into a corner, it's not just women doing it.

You say the media is taking swipes at physical men, where does that happen? Can you think of any examples?

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

"Tom boy" to me suggests a girl that has more masculine features which again has been tested, amount of hormones exposed to in the womb so I'd say has a biological basis. In such a case the parents shouldn't raise her as a "girly girl" but let her feel more comfortable in her skin by exposing her to something she wants to do. However I don't think you would ever have a situation where more women in the US play American Football than men and if there are female players they would come out of that ~10% pool of more masculanised women, so biological gender would act as a constraint all things being equal

Tomboy isn't a biological term, it purely refers to a childs preference to play in a colloquial sense anyway, most people who throw the term around have not had their childrens hormones tested. You're talking about something else entirely. Yes there are women out there who have higher testosterone levels than others, but that's a small percentage of the population and in no way accounts for all the "tomboys" that exist

You're still making the point that hobbies are what make you masculine or feminine? what about men who's hobby is baking, or who love cutting hair, are they somehow less masculine? what if they also train every day and are ripped to f#$k? how does this model of yours deal with that kind of dichotomy of interests?

There are definitely traits of traditional masculinity, risk taking being one we've identified but you keep coming back to hobbies, if you're a man who has this hobby you're feminine if you're a man who has that hobby you're masculine.

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

But this is still only one trait of masculinity, is this the trait you think is most under attack? What are others, I don't actually think I've ever read anything advising people to take less risks, if anything I've read the opposite.

feminists tend to get upset about how men perform at senior level in businesses like law. Who makes partner? the feminist will think old boys club, sexism etc. Yet the metric to become partner will be billings. Here a very small number of men will be so driven as to sacrifice other parts of their life in other to get their name on the plate or "win" by getting the biggest bonus.
Made up things like "mansplaining" "manspreading" "manturrupting" all seem like ways of pathologising male behaviour.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I'd say that the feminists you're referring to in the media are taking swipes at men at large and are always careful to not be specific about the men they're going after! Also I believe Niall Breslin is one of these male feminists, I've a hard time believing he's not a very physical man, or had any trouble "getting girls"

I don't know anything Niall Breslin so it wouldn't be fair to comment however Ill assume he doesn't bang on about muh patriarchy or muh intersectional feminism and is generally sympathetic to men?

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

feminists tend to get upset about how men perform at senior level in businesses like law. Who makes partner? the feminist will think old boys club, sexism etc. Yet the metric to become partner will be billings. Here a very small number of men will be so driven as to sacrifice other parts of their life in other to get their name on the plate or "win" by getting the biggest bonus.
Made up things like "mansplaining" "manspreading" "manturrupting" all seem like ways of pathologising male behaviour.

Drive to succeed is a trait common to both men and women, the definition of what success is may be different, but the drive to be successful is the same.

Am I right in thinking that you don't believe unconscious bias exists, I mean we all like people who are like us it's a fact, we tend to trust people like us more and promote them/ their interests accordingly.
I've actually read threads in the business and entrepreneur forum where people have said they don't hire women of a certain age, because they'll go off and get married and have kids. I've also sat in rooms where senior business men spoke about women in a derrogatory way and proudly declared themselves to be "aul chauvinists" I would have no confidence in that man interviewing an equally capable a male and female for a role and making an unbiased choice especially if the bloke plays golf.

silverharp wrote: »

I don't know anything Niall Breslin so it wouldn't be fair to comment however Ill assume he doesn't bang on about muh patriarchy or muh intersectional feminism and is generally sympathetic to men?

Niall Breslin is Brezzie, he's doing one of these talks at EP, he talks openly about his mental health issues and how the expectations of masculinity are crippling to mens mental health, supports feminism etc he's also a former Leinster player, frontman of the blizzards, and tall, dark, handsome dude.

py2006

silverharp wrote: »

Prison rates would indicate where misapplied energy ends up.

In an equal world, the prison rates would give a far different (and more realistic) view of society.

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Drive to succeed is a trait common to both men and women, the definition of what success is may be different, but the drive to be successful is the same.

Am I right in thinking that you don't believe unconscious bias exists, I mean we all like people who are like us it's a fact, we tend to trust people like us more and promote them/ their interests accordingly.
I've actually read threads in the business and entrepreneur forum where people have said they don't hire women of a certain age, because they'll go off and get married and have kids. I've also sat in rooms where senior business men spoke about women in a derrogatory way and proudly declared themselves to be "aul chauvinists" I would have no confidence in that man interviewing an equally capable a male and female for a role and making an unbiased choice especially if the bloke plays golf..

Im sure it does in certain corners but businesses are quite meritorical, if you pull in the most business you will get that promotion.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Niall Breslin is Brezzie, he's doing one of these talks at EP, he talks openly about his mental health issues and how the expectations of masculinity are crippling to mens mental health, supports feminism etc he's also a former Leinster player, frontman of the blizzards, and tall, dark, handsome dude.

it seems like his focus is mental health so he is coming off a different base, I doubt he was a member of the college Fem Ssoc

py2006 - In an equal world, the prison rates would give a far different (and more realistic) view of society.

they might be skewed somewhat but I think its fair to say males that don't engage with society probably create more criminal justice issues and problems for other men. If you as a man have your car robbed, your house broken into or you get set upon in the street its overwhelmingly going to be another male behind it

Tayschren

It seems that "men" are just getting softer as the years go and find fault in others to explain their lack of success instead of looking internally. Men have been told their nature is not socially acceptable anymore and they are falling for this bull in their droves.

The main anti male agenda is advanced by the yellow belly males running crying to mammy every time someone offends them.

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote: »

Im sure it does in certain corners but businesses are quite meritorical, if you pull in the most business you will get that promotion.

are they? you should look at some of the cases taken to the equality authority then! all hysterical people winning nonsense cases! It happens, it's not fiction.
Businesses should be a meritocracy, but they are run by people who are flawed by design and don't always make correct impartial decisions, and so the idea that as a rule women aren't at the top because they're not interested is sheer b0ll0x. There are a number of reasons, it might be partially true in some cases, but it's not the reason.

Regardless of that, the points stands the pursuit of success is not an exclusively masculine trait, women pursue success, they may pursue it in different arenas or ways, but they still pursue it to the exclusion of other things. I'll ask again, what about men you don't strive for success in the way you outlined? are they less masculine than your average business man?

El_Duderino 09

Breslin gets all kinds of flack from men who dislike his message. In this thread a few pages back there was discussion of the mental health problems facing men and suicide rates. Posters agreed that there should be more done to help men and get men who need help to use the gels available. The taboo of discussing mental health among men is usually seen as a barrier to men getting help. Then there was criticism of Breslin who actually does talk about men's mental health. He talks about it from his own experience and how some aspects of traditional masculinity make it difficult for men to get help.

Here's a link to an interview with Breslin. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/bressie-sobbing-uncontrollably-is-liberating-and-so-is-admitting-you-are-vulnerable-1.2802940?mode=amp

That's the funny thing in these threads. Bemoan the lack of services for men and blame problems on feminism, then bemoan the efforts of someone who actually does try to do something positive. Then continue to complain that nothing is being done for men. Blame feminism.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's the funny thing in these threads. Bemoan the lack of services for men and blame problems on feminism, then bemoan the efforts of someone who actually does try to do something positive. Then continue to complain that nothing is being done for men. Blame feminism.

http://www.alustforlife.com/soundeffect/electric-picnic-full-line-up

8.30pm – 10pm : Locker Room Talk: Inside the hearts, minds and bodies of Men in Ireland

[..]

We live in an extreme patriarchal society that is increasingly pushing people to their limits, how is this affecting our men? Masculinity is being graded according to macho hardness, sexual prowess, status, money and power, how does this affect mental health?

When vulnerable men are basically being recruited to feminism (their problems are due to a lack of feminist influence in society), which this could be described as, one should have a right to complain.

Triceratops Ballet

Masculinity is being graded according to macho hardness, sexual prowess, status, money and power, how does this affect mental health?

if the blurb had this sentence alone and made no mention of a patriarchal society, would the same problem exist?

iptba wrote: »

http://www.alustforlife.com/soundeffect/electric-picnic-full-line-up

When vulnerable men are basically being recruited to feminism (their problems are due to a lack of feminist influence in society), which this could be described as, one should have a right to complain.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

[



http://www.alustforlife.com/soundeffect/electric-picnic-full-line-up

8.30pm – 10pm : Locker Room Talk: Inside the hearts, minds and bodies of Men in Ireland

[..]

We live in an extreme patriarchal society that is increasingly pushing people to their limits, how is this affecting our men? Masculinity is being graded according to macho hardness, sexual prowess, status, money and power, how does this affect mental health?

When vulnerable men are basically being recruited to feminism (their problems are due to a lack of feminist influence in society), which this could be described as, one should have a right to complain.

Complain away.

I broadly agree with that blurb apart from the patriarch society part. The traditional ideas of masculinity are often discussed as barriers to men seeking help for mental illness.

Men have always been graded on those qualities mentioned to macho hardness, sexual prowess, status, money and power. That's not the issue. The issue is that some people think those are the only qualities that define a man and not many men actually achieve macho hardness, sexual prowess, status, money and power. Do it's worth discussing what makes a man beyond the most unimaginative stereotype. Wouldn't you agree?

professore

jsms88 wrote: »

Nicely put. Agreed.

However, there is nothing to say that a more capable student shouldn't pick the 'girly' Home Ec anyway. I have never bought into this idea that the brainy kids should do the science subjects and the less capable should stick to geography, etc.

Being mathematically gifted shouldn't mean you shouldn't do history if you enjoy it, for example. Equally, you'll find many less capable students in the physics and higher maths classes because they insist on being there.

I suppose the point I'm building to is that you'll find a mix of abilities in any class (unrelated to gender) and are unlikely to see a situation like that described in an earlier post where there are only excellent female students taking a particular subject or only less capable males, etc.

I would assume that a more intelligent student of either gender would choose the subjects they most like and want to pursue a career in. Barring the helicopter parents putting pressure on them. I'm not sure I agree with your point though. Female engineers and programmers tend to be very good, as do male nurses and primary teachers, as there is a cultural barrier for them to do these professions, so only the highly motivated will go into them.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Breslin gets all kinds of flack from men who dislike his message. In this thread a few pages back there was discussion of the mental health problems facing men and suicide rates. Posters agreed that there should be more done to help men and get men who need help to use the gels available. The taboo of discussing mental health among men is usually seen as a barrier to men getting help. Then there was criticism of Breslin who actually does talk about men's mental health. He talks about it from his own experience and how some aspects of traditional masculinity make it difficult for men to get help.

Here's a link to an interview with Breslin. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/bressie-sobbing-uncontrollably-is-liberating-and-so-is-admitting-you-are-vulnerable-1.2802940%3Fmode%3Damp

That's the funny thing in these threads. Bemoan the lack of services for men and blame problems on feminism, then bemoan the efforts of someone who actually does try to do something positive. Then continue to complain that nothing is being done for men. Blame feminism.

The problem with Bressie as he comes across to most middle of the road men as a big pussy. He looks like he has a good cry every evening after putting on his moisturisers and has sympathy periods every month with his girlfriend. A bit like Susan Boyle giving beauty courses to young women. If the message came from someone like Roy Keane or Conor McGregor then it might be taken more seriously.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That's the funny thing in these threads. Bemoan the lack of services for men and blame problems on feminism, then bemoan the efforts of someone who actually does try to do something positive. Then continue to complain that nothing is being done for men. Blame feminism.

Nope. This is your near guaranteed MO. Avoid, deflect, misrepresent and be dishonest in debate. A common thread in the more extreme views of all types mind you(though at least the debate goes against me = I'm being oppressed tactic is refreshingly lacking).

1) please point out where men's mental health has been blamed on feminism. I certainly haven't, nor wouldn't. 2) I never mentioned Breslin, nor my opinion of him(mixed) 3) what I have said repeatedly is even if one takes opinion on feminism out of it, it makes no sense to have feminist worldviews and politic, including men with a publicly declared self hate of their own gender being peddled to men who may need help. Imagine a similar group for gay folks. Where one of the main speakers has declared they have a visceral hatred of being gay, tried to wash the gay off themselves and envied and still envy their straight betters. That would go down like a lead balloon and would rightfully be called daft. It would even stand as a good definition of literal homophobia. Indeed think of any group who might feel marginalised and apply the same setup and no way would anyone be suggesting it was all OK just because at least they're trying to help.They'd be rightfully run outa town on the nearest cart. Tar and feathers optional. But apparently this particular case gets a pass.

So keep banging that out of beat drum if you will, but at least be honest about your position, or actually state the position you hold, rather than this deflection and misrepresentation in replies in dire need of cogency. A position that seems to boil down to Feminism great, all questioning of this self evidently correct creed is ridiculous and almost certainly closet or overt misogynism. Though pigs might fly...

professore

silverharp wrote: »

men wanting to socialise or women wanting to socialise in a public place has a huge overlap so off the top of my head I cant think of any major gender differences. it was probably down to social convention that the sexes were separated somewhat although I think its natural for men and women to want to socialise separately at times, the housewife's "book club" glug glug is the same as me going down to the pub with my mates where its male only company.
you would agree that men biologically take more risk than women? that has been tested , you would see the outwork of that where men tend to dominate risky sports? Motor cycles racing for example.

There are virtually zero places now that men can exclusively socialise with each other, outside of mens sheds, as there would be uproar. So this is just not an option anymore. And there are far far more socially adept women than men.

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote: »

The problem with Bressie as he comes across to most middle of the road men as a big pussy. He looks like he has a good cry every evening after putting on his moisturisers and has sympathy periods every month with his girlfriend. A bit like Susan Boyle giving beauty courses to young women. If the message came from someone like Roy Keane or Conor McGregor then it might be taken more seriously.

why though? before he started speaking openly about his mental health, he was just some big dude who played rugby and was in a band? why does this message have to come from someone like Keane/McGreggor to be taken seriously?

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

The problem with Bressie as he comes across to most middle of the road men as a big pussy. He looks like he has a good cry every evening after putting on his moisturisers and has sympathy periods every month with his girlfriend. A bit like Susan Boyle giving beauty courses to young women. If the message came from someone like Roy Keane or Conor McGregor then it might be taken more seriously.

Is that how he comes across to you? I haven't seen much of him do I can't comment.

I have to say I find it interesting that you'd gather all that from him. Massive pussy who cries and has periods and uses moisturiser. He's also an accomplished sportsman in both GAA and rugby, does ironman events, is an artist, I imagine he's reasonably well off, has social status and does alright with women. So he's a bit of an all-rounder.

Assuming he is a Massive pussy who cries and has sympathy periods and uses moisturiser. Should he not talk to men about masculinity? If the whole point is that you don't have to be macho to be a man, then why use the most macho examples to speak about not needing to be macho?