Anti-male movement

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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?

I was being a bit tongue in cheek. I don't know the guy either but the image he projects is the kind of "macho sensitive" type that the likes of me don't like. Could I imagine a good night out in the pub talking to him? Absolutely not - he would start whining about how his life "wasn't fair" etc etc. Then he would pull out a handful of €50 notes and have a swarm of women swooning over his every word and I could go back to enjoying my pint. I don't identify with him in any way whatsoever.

If he helps some men, then fair play to him, but he isn't a "typical" man and doesn't speak to me.

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.

The thing is someone like him says nothing to the normal Joe Soap. It seems to be the opposite effect for women, there are countless articles about how celebrity X managed to raise 6 kids from 6 different continents all the while working 100+ hours a week, and this is supposed to be an example for all women, never mind they had millions and a team of nannies and personal trainers around the clock.

Has social status this is really telling. Lots of men don't care about social status ... not in the same way women do.

I've read the biography of Paul Gascoigne who witnessed his friend being run over by a car when he was eight because he raced him back from the shop and the kid ran out first into the path of an oncoming car. I've read about Bobby Robson replacing the roof of his mouth every morning because the original had been eaten away with mouth cancer. Or Paul McGrath's ongoing struggles. Any of these men I can identify with.

To me it's much more valuable to see a more "normal" type of guy struggling with issues too than to see some guy like Bressie that screams "high maintenance diva" ... I look at him and think "of course he has mental health issues ... that will get him the maximum attention. I definitely don't want to be seen as a Bressie".

It's not about not talking about your issues, quite the opposite, it's about talking about them in a non whingy masculine way with other men. I have a few great male friends I am lucky enough to be able to talk about mental health issues with, and they me.

I don't know Bressie, maybe he's a fantastic guy in the flesh, but his media persona doesn't come across that way to me. He's a bit like some feminists got together and designed the perfect man in their opinion without actually asking any men for their input.

Triceratops Ballet

the point is there are all kinds of men and so they need all kinds of role models, there are some men who will only respond to a role model like the ones you outline as appealing to you, and there are men who won't even know who they are. You're using phrases like "normal" and "joe soap" to describe men like you, but everyone thinks that label applies to them, everyone describes themselves as "just a normal bloke". No one looks in the mirror, and goes oh my mate Brian is "normal" I'm one of those poncy bressie types!
Men who like things other than hard men footballers who've seen some real sh1t, are not lesser men because of it, and men who like to look good and appreciate social status are not lesser men because of it, and men who are as someone above said just not as hard, are not lesser men because of it. But being told that they are, and being told that this is what is a man is and because you don't tick those boxes, you're in some way lesser, or broken is damaging. There is no one way that men should be!

silverharp

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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?

not exclusive and overlapping for sure but there are more men that want that top job then there are women so it seems reasonable that women will be out competed on average. Im male and I would hate to be a CEO of a large multinational unless somehow it was something I created myself.

Being masculine men are in a hierarchy (for which its possible for each individual to move up in) because of a million years of sex selection and natural selection. You might as well blame the last couple of thousand generations of women , if they weren't choosy about who they had babies with, males would differ less from each other and the males and females might have more similar abilities. :pac:

As for your last point, it depends, there are different ways to exhibit the traits of masculinity. How would you compare a fireman to a businessman? say Michael O' Leary to put a face on it? as it happens our economy rewards mental nous over physical strength but they would both score high. Clearly if a dude cant support themselves and doesn't look after themselves very well then that individual probably wouldn't score high in masculine traits (all things being equal) that matter for success so you could say they are less masculine.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote:

I was being a bit tongue in cheek. I don't know the guy either but the image he projects is the kind of "macho sensitive" type that the likes of me don't like. Could I imagine a good night out in the pub talking to him? Absolutely not - he would start whining about how his life "wasn't fair" etc etc. Then he would pull out a handful of €50 notes and have a swarm of women swooning over his every word and I could go back to enjoying my pint. I don't identify with him in any way whatsoever.

professore wrote:

If he helps some men, then fair play to him, but he isn't a "typical" man and doesn't speak to me.

So you've described him as a massive pussy, who has sympathy periods (too empathetic to his girlfriend?) Moisturises and whining about how his life isn't fair. And he's thy type that the likes of you don't like because he's not like you. Then you say if he helps some men then fair play. What's wrong with him helping men hat aren't like you? Why not just ignore him if he isn't like you and you don't identify with him?

This is a serious men's issue were talking about and you're calling a guy who helps other men (but not you) a pussy and ""macho sensitive" type that the likes of me don't like".

The is exactly what I was referring to when I said that you come across this in these threads. Here's a problem for men and when someone tries to address the problem, have a go at them.

professore wrote:

The thing is someone like him says nothing to the normal Joe Soap. It seems to be the opposite effect for women, there are countless articles about how celebrity X managed to raise 6 kids from 6 different continents all the while working 100+ hours a week, and this is supposed to be an example for all women, never mind they had millions and a team of nannies and personal trainers around the clock.

I don't really get your point. Would you prefer more articles like that aimed at men?

professore wrote:

Has social status this is really telling. Lots of men don't care about social status ... not in the same way women do.

Social status was used as a masculine traits by other posters yesterday. (maybe the term was influence or something similar).

professore wrote:

I've read the biography of Paul Gascoigne who witnessed his friend being run over by a car when he was eight because he raced him back from the shop and the kid ran out first into the path of an oncoming car. I've read about Bobby Robson replacing the roof of his mouth every morning because the original had been eaten away with mouth cancer. Or Paul McGrath's ongoing struggles. Any of these men I can identify with.

Great, so you identified with those men and their stories resonated with you. That's grand. But why have such a go at a man who's stories resonated with other people?

professore wrote:

To me it's much more valuable to see a more "normal" type of guy struggling with issues too than to see some guy like Bressie that screams "high maintenance diva" ... I look at him and think "of course he has mental health issues ... that will get him the maximum attention. I definitely don't want to be seen as a Bressie".

Are Paul gascgoine, bobby Robson and Paul McGrath normal? I'd say they're fairly extraordinary men.

professore wrote:

It's not about not talking about your issues, quite the opposite, it's about talking about them in a non whingy masculine way with other men. I have a few great male friends I am lucky enough to be able to talk about mental health issues with, and they me.

Now you're just splitting hairs. Mental health and make suicide is a serious issue. Wouldn't you just be happy that he is helping other men?

I think there are probably plenty of men who you would consider massive pussies who empathise with their girlfriends, and use moisturiser. Men come in all shapes and sizes. And mental Illness can affect anyone. Instead of simply being happy that the men who identify with Bressie are getting some support and encouragement to seek help you're having a go at him and the men he speaks to.

If anyone is having a go at men, then it's not limited to feminists. Your post has demonstrated that this stuff comes from men too

Triceratops Ballet

silverharp wrote:

not exclusive and overlapping for sure but there are more men that want that top job then there are women so it seems reasonable that women will be out competed on average. Im male and I would hate to be a CEO of a large multinational unless somehow it was something I created myself.

How do you know there are more men that want this elusive top job? Have you evidence to support this idea?
I can't buy it.

silverharp wrote:

Being masculine men are in a hierarchy (for which its possible for each individual to move up in) because of a million years of sex selection and natural selection. You might as well blame the last couple of thousand generations of women , if they weren't choosy about who they had babies with, males would differ less from each other and the males and females might have more similar abilities.

I literally have no idea what this means or how it relates to anything I've said.

silverharp wrote:

As for your last point, it depends, there are different ways to exhibit the traits of masculinity. How would you compare a fireman to a businessman? say Michael O' Leary to put a face on it? as it happens our economy rewards mental nous over physical strength but they would both score high. Clearly if a dude cant support themselves and doesn't look after themselves very well then that individual probably wouldn't score high in masculine traits (all things being equal) that matter for success so you could say they are less masculine.

Again I don't see how any of these things are specifically masculine, being smart, being strong, being able to take care of yourself and support yourself, they're just qualities of successful humans.
Maybe it would help if I ask you to specify the opposite, what are feminine traits?

professore

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

the point is there are all kinds of men and so they need all kinds of role models, there are some men who will only respond to a role model like the ones you outline as appealing to you, and there are men who won't even know who they are. You're using phrases like "normal" and "joe soap" to describe men like you, but everyone thinks that label applies to them, everyone describes themselves as "just a normal bloke". No one looks in the mirror, and goes oh my mate Brian is "normal" I'm one of those poncy bressie types!
Men who like things other than hard men footballers who've seen some real sh1t, are not lesser men because of it, and men who like to look good and appreciate social status are not lesser men because of it, and men who are as someone above said just not as hard, are not lesser men because of it. But being told that they are, and being told that this is what is a man is and because you don't tick those boxes, you're in some way lesser, or broken is damaging. There is no one way that men should be!

No men are saying some men are lesser than others, that's not the point of what I'm saying at all. I don't know any men who identify with Bressie.

It's like the multi millionaire telling the homeless guy they struggle with money too. It might be true but it doesn't work.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote:

No men are saying some men are lesser than others, that's not the point of what I'm saying at all. I don't know any men who identify with Bressie.

You didn't say anyone is lesser in exactly those words. But you did call him a massive pussy who cries, has periods with his girlfriend and uses moisturiser. Was that supposed to be complementary? You also said he probably whins about how his life's not fair and is macho sensitive and the type that people like you don't like.

Are you sure you that didn't imply he's lesser than they type that people like you do like? Maybe you didn't mean to speak so poorly about him but I think that's the effect.

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote:

No men are saying some men are lesser than others, that's not the point of what I'm saying at all. I don't know any men who identify with Bressie.

That's the impression you give when you speak about him in the terms you did, as a whiny pussy with sympathetic periods, and he happens to be a man who talks publicly about his feelings.

It's the impression silverharp gives whe he says that men are in a hierarchy where the men who like to succeed at work, and fish, and be outdoors are manly men and the others are feminised.

El_Duderino 09

Triceratops Ballet wrote:

That's the impression you give when you speak about him in the terms you did, as a whiny pussy with sympathetic periods, and he happens to be a man who talks publicly about his feelings.

It's the impression silverharp gives whe he says that men are in a hierarchy where the men who like to succeed at work, and fish, and be outdoors are manly men and the others are feminised.

The bit that confuses me is the men who complain about feminists telling men they're no good which might or might not be happening, but stay silent when posters on his thread are saying those things about other men.

I thought we agreed that you don't have to be macho to be a man, and then when a poster calls a man a pussy for not being macho enough, there's silence.

We're hardly the only ones who see this situation as being odd.

johnnyskeleton

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Genuine question, why do you think it's so negative?

here's the blurb:

Sorry just saw this now. It's not even that I think it is negative, it's that the fact that they think they can just casually state as fact that we live in an extremely patriarchal society and then talk about how we can change this is completely skewing the debate. It demonstrates that, contrary to the suggestion that they are trying to speak to issues that actually are of concern to men, they have chosen issues that are of concern to feminists about men, and then have duped some men into talking about them. No man, not even a heavily concussed Jack McGrath, would voluntarily choose "extreme patriarchy" as the root cause of mental health problems.

It then uses the no true scotsman falacy, that is to say:

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

With the exception of macho hardness, none of those things are uniquely masculine. Women have sex and status, and money and power are social constructs that acrue to those who strive for them. As regards macho hardness, I'm not quite sure what that means but if it means fighting wars, working long hours, competeing with other men, then yeah, those things can lead to mental health problems. But their absence can lead to the end of the human race so, you know, it's just a necessary part of the human condition.

What is needed to create a society in which our men can express their true masculine power in a healthy way ?

Because being a normal man is defective, and we need to change society so that you can be a true man i.e. an inferior woman.

johnnyskeleton

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I get that, there has to be a way to structure things like this to include men who fit those traits and those who don't as those who don't. I think the important conversation is broadening the definition of masculinity, so that those who don't naturally fit in with traditional ideas (macho hardness, sexual prowess, status, money and power) don't crumble under the pressure of those social expectations.

There is a time and a place for intellectual debate about how we should structure society and so forth.

That place is NOT in a mental health seminar. I would ask you to imagine what it would be like to be a poor unfortunate man who has mental health problems and goes to these ideologues for help and they press their society changing, cultural marxist agenda on the poor guy, but I don't need to, because here's a real world example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Basically, due to an unfortunate early childhood accident this guy's penis was very badly damaged. The parents went to one of those "gender is a social construct" ideologues who said "I know, let's just raise him as a girl and, since gender is clearly a social construct he won't even notice the difference." Cue 40 years of misery followed by suicide.

If Pieta house are pushing the feminist agenda on unsuspecting people at a vulnerable point in their lives (i.e. when they want help with their mental health) then I would consider them to be a cult worse than the Scientologists. At least the Scientologists only take your money and give you a small chance of being happy!

To me it seems the target market for this talk is men who don't ascribe to masculinity in that way and need reassurance that they aren't "broken" or "less manly" in some way. I agree that the wording is probably a bit alienating to some but maybe it's not talking to them. Maybe those who are comfortable in their masculinity (whatever it means to them) don't need a talk like that?

Why then couldn't it be a simple talk about the challenges facing men and have an open floor for discussion? Why do they have to push the agenda of patriarchy (which, if you want to get into it, is a conspiracy theory that allows feminists to hate men with impunity rather than being an accurate analysis of society) and why couldn't they talk about money problems, concern over physical health etc instead of leading with their assumption?

Because they want to indoctrinate people, is why.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The bit that confuses me is the men who complain about feminists telling men they're no good which might or might not be happening, but stay silent when posters on his thread are saying those things about other men.

I thought we agreed that you don't have to be macho to be a man, and then when a poster calls a man a pussy for not being macho enough, there's silence.

We're hardly the only ones who see this situation as being odd.

First of all this is not an attack on Bressie personally. I'm sure he's a great guy, and I do recognise he has spoken out about mental health and that's really commendable. I'm not about calling him names. It's more what he represents.

There is a particular type of man that is "acceptable" to the media and any man that doesn't fit this mould is somehow toxic. This type of man identifies as a feminist, cries at every opportunity and gives out participation trophies, and is, well, a little bit bland. David Beckham is another example of this type - kind of a woman with designer stubble.

Identifying with this type of man goes against the fundamental nature of the majority of men. They will never be that guy. End of story. Telling them they are somehow damaged and need to cry all the time and identify as a feminist will solve all their mental health issues is not good. When guys get together you will see this as plain as day, as long as there isn't a woman present.

When a man is upset about something he is more likely to get angry about it than to have a good cry - however he is told that this is toxic whereas it isn't AT ALL ... anger is a POSITIVE emotion if it is channeled correctly. It's telling you something is wrong with your life, and it gives you the incentive to change.

There is NEVER any mention about the need for men needing to socialise with other men anywhere, apart from the men's shed movement, which is targeted at older and unemployed men. I think this is the root of a lot of depression and suicide in men.

IF you really want to get what I am trying to explain (sorry mansplain), watch Good Will Hunting ... this is one of the best films about men's mental health and how to handle it I've ever seen.

johnnyskeleton

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

As far as the anti "toxic masculinity" stuff, whats the answer? If you believe the narrative being put forth is incorrect, what's the solution? It's easy to deride mullally and o'neill etc for this kind of talk as they have no first hand experience of societal expectations of traditional masculinity, but they're not the only ones talking about it, this message is being delivered to the public by men too, the facilitator of that talk at EP is a man, this is the kind of stuff Niall Breslin is always on about aswell as yer man from rubberbandits. If that's the narrative out there and it's incorrect and even damaging then how does it get solved?

Good question. Basically critics of feminism usually take an anonymous form on the internet and so forth rather than being raised in polite society. The common acceptance of feminist thought in public life is so much that one risks being ostracised if one disagrees. Niall Breslin and Blind Boy say something that is on message for feminist thought and everyone claps and goes "oh, isn't he so brave to say that". Were they to express contrary opinions, they would be public enemy no.1 and their shows would be boycotted. Lord knows Bressie doesn't need to lose any of his fan.

professore

Yeah you can criticise any religion or ideology now publically except feminism. As a career move it's on a par with being a Holocaust denier. There is literally zero debate about this in public. If a feminist said it you are not allowed to question it. They can openly say they hate men and then laugh it off as a joke. In the worst of the bad old days I can't ever remember a male media figure saying he hated women.

tigger123

professore wrote: »

Yeah you can criticise any religion or ideology now publically except feminism. As a career move it's on a par with being a Holocaust denier. There is literally zero debate about this in public. If a feminist said it you are not allowed to question it. They can openly say they hate men and then laugh it off as a joke. In the worst of the bad old days I can't ever remember a male media figure saying he hated women.

The President of the US seems to get away with saying whatever he wants about women without any consequence.

johnnyskeleton

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The bit that confuses me is the men who complain about feminists telling men they're no good

All men.

but stay silent when posters on his thread are saying those things about other men.

A man. Singular. Who, if he simply said "this is who I am" no one would bat an eye lid. But, because he is repeatedly in the news saying "This is who I am, and every other man should be like me and less how they currently are", people will criticise him.

I thought we agreed that you don't have to be macho to be a man, and then when a poster calls a man a pussy for not being macho enough, there's silence.

Again, you are citing the specific and extrapolating it to the general. None of this is a problem if it is just one person's opinion. But it is a problem if there is an organisation pushing an agenda. Feminists love talking about systemic sexism but they struggle to find specific examples. Where here's one:

Pieta house, a mental health charity, which seems to be run by feminists, are pushing feminism on men who feel they might have mental health problems, and no one is pointing out that maybe you shouldn't test out your whacky ideology on vulnerable people.

So again, I don't really mind if they say stupid things to me. I can handle it. But I have concerns about what they are saying to vulnerable men behind closed doors. Yes, I am expressing concern for men. Not individual men but a group of men. If I criticise one man, that doesn't alter my position.

EDIT: Also questionable is Jack McGrath's involvement. Not critising him, but it's far too easy for celebrities to accept without question the positions that they are told to put forward without espousing their own:

Triceratops Ballet

professore wrote:

There is NEVER any mention about the need for men needing to socialise with other men anywhere, apart from the men's shed movement, which is targeted at older and unemployed men. I think this is the root of a lot of depression and suicide in men.

I think that's well documented, people talk about the importance of sports teams for men for this reason because more goes with it than just sport its the social aspect. The mens shed movement seems like a fantastic resource too, there's nothing to say that it couldn't be adapted for younger men. There's a group of like minded men here in TGC, what's to stop you from getting together and making it happen? It would be an amazing thing to do and maybe despite what you might think it would be welcomed and lauded in the public.

johnnyskeleton

tigger123 wrote: »

The President of the US seems to get away with saying whatever he wants about women without any consequence.

What statements has he made generalising about all women?

In relation to a number of rather gauche comments, such as how some women let him grab them by the gentials because he is a billionaire, he was lambasted by the press for saying this. But yet, he was probably only recounting how he felt. Certainly, it didn't stop a large number of women voting for him.

I don't want to dwell on Trump - I think he is boorish, stupid and ill suited to the position of President of the USA. But I don't think this is an apt counter argument for the fact that, in the media and in public spaces in Ireland, there is little room to criticise feminism and feminism has free reign.

Certainly, the answer to the feeling that feminists are trying to indoctrinate vulnerable men is to try and stop them doing so, and point out the error of their ways to them, rather than let things get as ridiculous as they have gotten in the States resulting in our own little Trump!

mzungu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If I recall correctly, the rubberbandits guy was saying that some aspects of traditional masculinity such as stoicism and toughness were the very factors that prevented men from seeking help for mental illness. I think that's not too controversial to say. I would have thought most people agree that some aspects of stereotypical masculinity would conflict with seeking help - this goes down to the silly stereotype of men refusing to ask for directions because men should have a good sense of direction and men dont ask for help. Surely challenging those unhelpful stereotypes is good.

IIRC he said it was lack of success with women. That might be his opinion, but he got plaudits for it. I have no idea why. It is not even close to being right.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't know about selfishness but aloofness is definitely part of a stereotype of masculinity. James Dean relies on no man.

I think once the viewer can discern reality from the movies then there is no problem, some traits will always be exaggerated for audience entertainment and to make the character appear larger than life. But if the movies are having a negative impact on a persons self esteem, then I would hedge bets the problem lies elsewhere.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know it was a bit of a long shot. Some other posters kept coming back to saying "but what about the men who are naturally masculine". I was trying to make the point that here are very few men who are like that in reality. So it's worth discussing other forms of masculinity other than the small sliver of men who live like the Marlboro man.

Yep, there are other traits alright, quite a few in fact and it means different things to different people. As movie cliches are an outlier (if they even exist in a meaningful sense IRL at all) then you are really left with personal opinions on what male traits seem to be predominate. This might be what we call masculinity as a means to have a catchall term to group these traits into.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I wouldn't have masculinity as a cause of mental illness but I'd say it can be a barrier to seeking help early by chatting with friends about mental health and seeking primary medical care. Maybe you're right and the cause is more to do with modern lifestyle. I don't know.

If, as we seem to agree, masculinity seems to have no real fixed abode and is quite malleable (depending on who you ask), then even masculinity itself would not pose a barrier, but rather it would be a character trait of that individual.To use you example above, lets say this person does not share intimate details with his friends about how he is feeling, as he may quite rightly feel uncomfortable sharing his private life with others. The reasons for not talking to people would not be primarily a male thing, although, I grant you that it probably does occur more in men.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't think you could really define masculinity anyway. I think it's a nonsense as it's being bandied around in this thread as if it has an agreed upon meaning.

There may very well be definition out there that suits all, but I haven't heard it. I am perfectly happy to let each one define it for themselves.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

For me, masculinity is about doing what you enjoy with confidence. That goes for your hobbies, sports, friends, the things you like to chat about, career, partner choice and so on. As long as you're not harming anyone you're doing what you want with confidence and you're having a good time, then id recognise that as positive masculinity.

If there's such a thing as negative masculinity I'd say it's when someone uses an imaginary ideal form of traditional masculinity to as a yardstick that they don't measure up to. E.g. they are experiencing depression but they think 'real men' don't ask for help, or real men are tough enough to deal with it, or real men are stoical about these things. So they don't ask help and they don't get treatment.

I don't disagree with any of the above. Like I said before, negative traits that have worked their way into the male psyche need to be dismantled. Although those traits (positive and negative), it could be said, are shared by both genders, and I would be hesitant to attribute them as being primarily male.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

My point is that there isn't anything wrong with the 'traditional masculinity' but it's not really applicable to most men and it's not always helpful anyway. There are lots of ways to be a man so I think it's worth discussing the all the ways that actually apply to most men rather than focusing on the small group of traits of old school masculinity as thought they were the ideal.

This brings us back to the Pieta House talk at EP. On one hand I think it is good they are talking about this stuff, on the other, it is the political side of it that makes me wary. It is a conversation bound by terms that would be alien to most men. Their starting off point is that we are all living in a patriarchal society, so within these terms the discussion takes place. Added to this, we have one of the speakers who is quite vocal about his distain for masculinity and you have to wonder exactly what the endgame is here? By all means have discussions, but don't have them bound by ideology. If nothing else it is dishonest, a proper honest discussion should drop all prior baggage at the door.

Triceratops Ballet

I'm actually half tempted to go to this talk and see is it actually that bad, but I bet it clashes with something good

mzungu

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I'm actually half tempted to go to this talk and see is it actually that bad, but I bet it clashes with something good

No fear of that, I just had a gander at the line up :pac::pac:

Wibbs

professore wrote: »

They can openly say they hate men and then laugh it off as a joke. In the worst of the bad old days I can't ever remember a male media figure saying he hated women.

Good point and I can't recall an example of that from the good old days. Oh public misogyny was most certainly in play with many and wider society accepted even laughed along with it, but it was generally more of the "there there dear" type. IMHO equally if not more insidious and frustrating. At least with open hate and obvious discrimination it's easier to fight and dismiss. Not unlike how "mild" racism was and too often is in play. The difference being that a public person of colour in the west would find themselves on shaky ground if they came out with they hated Whitey, or wore a tee shirt saying the "bathed in Whitey tears". Yet quite the few very public feminist mouthpieces in the media do just that and get away with it, even get lauded for it.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Sorry just saw this now. It's not even that I think it is negative, it's that the fact that they think they can just casually state as fact that we live in an extremely patriarchal society and then talk about how we can change this is completely skewing the debate. It demonstrates that, contrary to the suggestion that they are trying to speak to issues that actually are of concern to men, they have chosen issues that are of concern to feminists about men, and then have duped some men into talking about them.

Head meet nail.

As regards macho hardness, I'm not quite sure what that means but if it means fighting wars, working long hours, competeing with other men, then yeah, those things can lead to mental health problems. But their absence can lead to the end of the human race so, you know, it's just a necessary part of the human condition.

Ah here J, you can't be coming out with stating the obvious.

Because being a normal man is defective, and we need to change society so that you can be a true man i.e. an inferior woman.

That pretty much sums up the background to this "service" for men, hidden in the sugar coating of "helping". Cause that's what really matters #careaboutmen As I said earlier imagine a similar group for vulnerable folks in the gay community. 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. There would be rightful uproar at that. There would be uproar if a gay person announced that in general and a major WTF if the same person was asked to speak to vulnerable gay folks in an advisory capacity. To make them "normal" like. :rolleyes: As you said it's seeing normal men as defective, and we need to change them into inferior woman. Well of course they'd be inferior women(Irony overload). Hell, "feminists" pull the same crap with women who don't fully buy into their catechism.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Why then couldn't it be a simple talk about the challenges facing men and have an open floor for discussion? Why do they have to push the agenda of patriarchy (which, if you want to get into it, is a conspiracy theory that allows feminists to hate men with impunity rather than being an accurate analysis of society) and why couldn't they talk about money problems, concern over physical health etc instead of leading with their assumption?

Because they want to indoctrinate people, is why.

+1000

Again, you are citing the specific and extrapolating it to the general.

Yep

Me. Earlier wrote: »

Nope. This is your near guaranteed MO. Avoid, deflect, misrepresent and be dishonest in debate.

I can pretty much guarantee JS you'll not get anything approaching a straight answer to the points you raise.

johnnyskeleton

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I'm actually half tempted to go to this talk and see is it actually that bad, but I bet it clashes with something good

I originally came across it looking for something to do after Divine Comedy on the Friday!

johnnyskeleton

Wibbs wrote: »

As I said earlier imagine a similar group for vulnerable folks in the gay community. 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. There would be rightful uproar at that. There would be uproar if a gay person announced that in general and a major WTF if the same person was asked to speak to vulnerable gay folks in an advisory capacity. To make them "normal" like. :rolleyes: As you said it's seeing normal men as defective, and we need to change them into inferior woman. Well of course they'd be inferior women(Irony overload). Hell, "feminists" pull the same crap with women who don't fully buy into their catechism.

Very apt analogy. If we re-write the Pieta house stuff using homosexual or gay man, here's what we come up with:

We live in an extreme homosexual society that is increasingly pushing people to their limits, how is this affecting our gay men? Homosexuality is being graded according to macho hardness, sexual prowess, status, money and power, how does this affect mental health? What is needed to create a society in which our gay men can express their true masculine power in a healthy way ? What are the rites of passage and initiations required to support homosexuals to grow from childhood into adulthood in the best way possible? Who are the gay role models in the world today? Why are so many gay men hurting right now and what are we going to do about it?

The problems, if such was what the wrote, would be easily identified as followed:

1. The word "extreme" implies that the current state of being has gone too far.
2. One would have thought that a homosexual society, even an extreme one, would be positive or neutral for gay men. But from the tone, we would infer that it is bad for other people i.e. (in the above fiction) straight people or (in the Pieta house real world example), women are the real victims of this society.
3. If you were to say that "macho hardness, sexual prowess, status, money and power" are how homosexuality is being graded you would be lambasted for a misleading and offensive portrayal of gay culture generally, and for tarring all gay men with the same brush specifically.
4. We should change from this false view of homosexuality to the "true" version of homosexuality. I.e. stop being gay please.
5. "In a healthy way" i.e. don't object to being transformed from your innate sexual preference to our societally approved sexual preference for you.
6. "What are the rites of passage and initiations required to support homosexuals to grow from childhood into adulthood in the best way possible?" - This is actually the first time that it addresses the actual issues that might affect the target audience. Why didn't they lead with this instead of the dubious first half of the description.
7. The rest of it is also unobjectionable, so I'll park my ire!

Someone above asked the question - "so what should we change". This quick change of the terms makes it clear that the thing that needs to change is allowing some groups of people to push their agenda on another group of people without being called up on it.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

First of all this is not an attack on Bressie personally. I'm sure he's a great guy, and I do recognise he has spoken out about mental health and that's really commendable. I'm not about calling him names. It's more what he represents.

I don't know if you're being serious or if you're completely unaware of what you said about the guy. How do you call someone a pussy without calling names? But lets put that to one side and assume you were not calling him a pussy etc., only referring to the type of man that he represents. How in sweet sufferin Jaysus is tht better in the context of this discussion? You're about to complain about people not accepting your type of masculinity, and you're merrily saying these things about other men. 

Tell me you see what I'm seeing here. Or at least tell me what I'm missing. Why is it Ok for you to say that about other men when you're so sensitive to how you feel  

professore;104547665
There is a particular type of man that is "acceptable" to the media and any man that doesn't fit this mould is somehow toxic.  This type of man identifies as a feminist, cries at every opportunity and gives out participation trophies, and is, well, a little bit bland. David Beckham is another example of this type - kind of a woman with designer stubble.[/quote]

If there's a problem with some types of men not being accepted but you're happy to say this about other men, - a kind of woman with designer stubble. But you're not calling any names, right?

professore;104547665
Identifying with this type of man goes against the fundamental nature of the majority of men.  They will never be that guy. End of story. Telling them they are somehow damaged and need to cry all the time and identify as a feminist will solve all their mental health issues is not good.  When guys get together you will see this as plain as day, as long as there isn't a woman present.[/quote]

Lets not pretend to speak for the majority of men. Breslin doesn't speak for you personally. As it happens I don't think he speaks for me either but I've never really listened to him. The bits I have gathered of him is that his message is generally positive but it's not really for me. Nobody is saying that the normal parts of masculinity means you're broken. I don't ever hear anyone telling me that. Do people really say that to you? I've heard people say that there are other ways to be a man. You don't have to be macho all the time, it's ok to ask for help etc. When the attributes of traditional masculinity are a barrier to getting help for mental illness, then lots of men need support to take different approach.  

 I presume a good lot of what you're saying is hyperbole so it's hard to figure out which bits to seriously respond to. Does anyone including Breslin say that men need to cry all the time? 

professore;104547665
When a man is upset about something he is more likely to get angry about it than to have a good cry - however he is told that this is toxic whereas it isn't AT ALL ... anger is a POSITIVE emotion if it is channeled correctly.  It's telling you something is wrong with your life, and it gives you the incentive to change. There is NEVER any mention about the need for men needing to socialise with other men anywhere, apart from the men's shed movement, which is targeted at older and unemployed men.  I think this is the root of a lot of depression and suicide in men.[/quote]

Grand. Anger helps you out. Brilliant, I'm delighted for you. But straight away you're back to telling me what men in generally think (anger/crying). If anger works for you then that's what you should do (as long as you don't harm anyone). Uncontrolled anger also has the potential to damage people too. If you channel anger into drugs or fighting with strangers, then it's going beyond harming yourself. So obviously Anger is treated as more dangerous because... it's more dangerous.

professore;104547665
IF you really want to get what I am trying to explain (sorry mansplain), watch Good Will Hunting ... this is one of the best films about men's mental health and how to handle it I've ever seen.[/quote]

If Good Will Hunting is relatable for you then that's fine. If Breslin's message helps other men, why would you have a go at Breslin (or what Breslin represents, as you prefer to phrase it). Assume that Breslin's message is helpful to pussies. Not tough men like you but the type of men that men like you don't like. Why would you begrudge those men that?

I'm amazed at how quiet the other posters are being about the way you're speaking about other men. Imagine if a feminist was posting here, calling men who weren't macho, "pussys". If you cared about men, you wouldn't be at that.   
The posters who care about men's issues will see what's wrong with that. The men who are more focused on having a go at feminism than solving problems for men, will probably stay quiet until there's a point they want to discuss on how feminism is bad and makes men feel like there's something wrong with them for being the way they are. I wonder if you're seeing the irony I'm seeing.

I can't help feeling there's a bitterness in what you're saying. You feel that your type of masculinity isn't supported enough by other people, so you feel justified in calling other men pussys and bland, kind of woman with designer stubble.

I must be missing something.  [/quote]

professore

tigger123 wrote: »

professore wrote: »

Yeah you can criticise any religion or ideology now publically except feminism. As a career move it's on a par with being a Holocaust denier. There is literally zero debate about this in public. If a feminist said it you are not allowed to question it. They can openly say they hate men and then laugh it off as a joke. In the worst of the bad old days I can't ever remember a male media figure saying he hated women.

The President of the US seems to get away with saying whatever he wants about women without any consequence.

Not defending Trump, but I've never seen as many women in prominent positions as in the Trump cabinet. And no consequences? He's hammered by the media for everything he says and does, even things that other presidents were given a free pass on. Also can't think of anything anti women he has said in ages.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

professore wrote: »

First of all this is not an attack on Bressie personally. I'm sure he's a great guy, and I do recognise he has spoken out about mental health and that's really commendable. I'm not about calling him names. It's more what he represents.

I don't know if you're being serious or if you're completely unaware of what you said about the guy. How do you call someone a pussy without calling names? But lets put that to one side and assume you were not calling him a pussy etc., only referring to the type of man that he represents. How in sweet sufferin Jaysus is tht better in the context of this discussion? You're about to complain about people not accepting your type of masculinity, and you're merrily saying these things about other men. 

Tell me you see what I'm seeing here. Or at least tell me what I'm missing. Why is it Ok for you to say that about other men when you're so sensitive to how you feel  

professore;104547665

There is a particular type of man that is "acceptable" to the media and any man that doesn't fit this mould is somehow toxic.  This type of man identifies as a feminist, cries at every opportunity and gives out participation trophies, and is, well, a little bit bland. David Beckham is another example of this type - kind of a woman with designer stubble.

If there's a problem with some types of men not being accepted but you're happy to say this about other men, - a kind of woman with designer stubble. But you're not calling any names, right?

professore;104547665

Identifying with this type of man goes against the fundamental nature of the majority of men.  They will never be that guy. End of story. Telling them they are somehow damaged and need to cry all the time and identify as a feminist will solve all their mental health issues is not good.  When guys get together you will see this as plain as day, as long as there isn't a woman present.

Lets not pretend to speak for the majority of men. Breslin doesn't speak for you personally. As it happens I don't think he speaks for me either but I've never really listened to him. The bits I have gathered of him is that his message is generally positive but it's not really for me. Nobody is saying that the normal parts of masculinity means you're broken. I don't ever hear anyone telling me that. Do people really say that to you? I've heard people say that there are other ways to be a man. You don't have to be macho all the time, it's ok to ask for help etc. When the attributes of traditional masculinity are a barrier to getting help for mental illness, then lots of men need support to take different approach.  

 I presume a good lot of what you're saying is hyperbole so it's hard to figure out which bits to seriously respond to. Does anyone including Breslin say that men need to cry all the time? 

professore;104547665

When a man is upset about something he is more likely to get angry about it than to have a good cry - however he is told that this is toxic whereas it isn't AT ALL ... anger is a POSITIVE emotion if it is channeled correctly.  It's telling you something is wrong with your life, and it gives you the incentive to change. There is NEVER any mention about the need for men needing to socialise with other men anywhere, apart from the men's shed movement, which is targeted at older and unemployed men.  I think this is the root of a lot of depression and suicide in men.

Grand. Anger helps you out. Brilliant, I'm delighted for you. But straight away you're back to telling me what men in generally think (anger/crying). If anger works for you then that's what you should do (as long as you don't harm anyone). Uncontrolled anger also has the potential to damage people too. If you channel anger into drugs or fighting with strangers, then it's going beyond harming yourself. So obviously Anger is treated as more dangerous because... it's more dangerous.

professore;104547665

IF you really want to get what I am trying to explain (sorry mansplain), watch Good Will Hunting ... this is one of the best films about men's mental health and how to handle it I've ever seen.

If Good Will Hunting is relatable for you then that's fine. If Breslin's message helps other men, why would you have a go at Breslin (or what Breslin represents, as you prefer to phrase it). Assume that Breslin's message is helpful to pussies. Not tough men like you but the type of men that men like you don't like. Why would you begrudge those men that?

I'm amazed at how quiet the other posters are being about the way you're speaking about other men. Imagine if a feminist was posting here, calling men who weren't macho, "pussys". If you cared about men, you wouldn't be at that.   

The posters who care about men's issues will see what's wrong with that. The men who are more focused on having a go at feminism than solving problems for men, will probably stay quiet until there's a point they want to discuss on how feminism is bad and makes men feel like there's something wrong with them for being the way they are. I wonder if you're seeing the irony I'm seeing.

I can't help feeling there's a bitterness in what you're saying. You feel that your type of masculinity isn't supported enough by other people, so you feel justified in calling other men pussys and bland, kind of woman with designer stubble.

I must be missing something.  

Yes, you are missing everything. Here's an open question ... If there are any guys still even reading this, and you had some mental health problems, who would you prefer to talk about them with, El Duderino or me?

johnnyskeleton

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm amazed at how quiet the other posters are being about the way you're speaking about other men. Imagine if a feminist was posting here, calling men who weren't macho, "pussys". If you cared about men, you wouldn't be at that.   

I care about societal issues and am interested in discussing same. How institutions can display gender bias against a gender (god, I'm starting to sound like gender studies 101, except in reverse) is an important topic.

By contrast, I don't care as much about individual poster's opinions of other people (as opposed to their opinions of ideas and movements). I explained that above, and, since you are the one decrying silence, can you accept that there is a valid reason why people discussing the topic at hand don't get hung up on the words one poster used to describe one public celebrity?

The posters who care about men's issues will see what's wrong with that. The men who are more focused on having a go at feminism than solving problems for men, will probably stay quiet until there's a point they want to discuss on how feminism is bad and makes men feel like there's something wrong with them for being the way they are. I wonder if you're seeing the irony I'm seeing.

The odious brand of American Identity Politics Intersectional Feminism is affecting the media, the culture and now institutions in Ireland. And discussing the anti-male biases inherent in those (or, one step further, the anti-straight white male bias) is what we are trying to discuss.

When there are good things about feminism, they will be discussed. I'm happy to discuss the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia and how that particularly country has a massive anti-female bias if you are?

But there is a grain of truth in what you say. Ultimately, people on the internet want to look at the bad parts of feminism. Partially because it is damaging to society, but perhaps mostly because it is funny:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/features/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

El_Duderino 09

johnnyskeleton wrote:

All men.

Some men at least. I don't experience this stuff at all so I'm just going by what the other posters here are saying they experience.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

A man. Singular. Who, if he simply said "this is who I am" no one would bat an eye lid. But, because he is repeatedly in the news saying "This is who I am, and every other man should be like me and less how they currently are", people will criticise him.

Well luckily the professore clarified his statement to say he didn't mean breaking personally, just what he represents. As if it's better to speak about the type men who identify with Breslin as pussys. I doubt he says every other man should be like him. Think you might be being a bit sensitive there.

So what if it was just Breslin who he was referring to as a pussy who crys every night? Were talking about promoting mental health among men and that's how you're happy to have people speak about a guy who is doing the job and connecting with other men?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Again, you are citing the specific and extrapolating it to the general. None of this is a problem if it is just one person's opinion. But it is a problem if there is an organisation pushing an agenda. Feminists love talking about systemic sexism but they struggle to find specific examples. Where here's one:

Well as I said, the poster was describing the type of man Breslin represents. So what does that do to your argument that it's just one man?

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Pieta house, a mental health charity, which seems to be run by feminists, are pushing feminism on men who feel they might have mental health problems, and no one is pointing out that maybe you shouldn't test out your whacky ideology on vulnerable people.

So again, I don't really mind if they say stupid things to me. I can handle it. But I have concerns about what they are saying to vulnerable men behind closed doors. Yes, I am expressing concern for men. Not individual men but a group of men. If I criticise one man, that doesn't alter my position.

Well now the prefessore is calling the men that Breslin represents, pussys. is that something you agree with it are we at cross purposes?

I think it's fine to discuss other ways of being a man than being macho. I don't see any problem with doing that at all. Some posters seem to tentatively agree that there are other ways to be a man than being macho but when they hear Breslin actually discuss his experience, they bristle.

Here's a question for you. We've spent so long discussing the macho men, what about the 'pussys' as professore calls them? The men who aren't naturally macho and men who moisturises. Macho men have been discussed at great length and think we've completely neglected the entire rest of men who aren't naturally macho. What would be the best approach for helping the mental health of men who aren't naturally macho?

Given that the topic is notionally about helping men rather than bashing feminism. What would be a good way to help the rest of men who aren't naturally macho when it comes to mental health?

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote:

There is NEVER any mention about the need for men needing to socialise with other men anywhere, apart from the men's shed movement, which is targeted at older and unemployed men. I think this is the root of a lot of depression and suicide in men.

This is an interesting point. I've a background in psychology so I would take it for granted that social interaction is essential for mental health. I regularly have man time. I'm going to the rugby with 3 lads form work tomorrow night. Last weekend we got together to watch the F1 and we're doing the same thing this Sunday. The lads, a few beers and pizzas.

It's sad that people aren't encouraged to get together but who do you want to encourage you to get together? Should the government tell you to get together with the lads? If feminists said lads should socialise together, it would be roundly rejected. I agree that getting together is a great idea but I just don't know what you expect to be done about it.

Do you feel that women are encouraged to get together but men are discouraged from doing the same? Any examples?