Fintan O’Toole jumping on the bandwagon to score points against Irish men and boys.

Maleligned

There’s nothing more nauseating than some Irish men in their never ending quest for social approval desperate to jump on every bandwagon going to say the right thing to show how they’re good bois not like the others. Few but the most radical feminists have advocated indoctrinating boys in response to the sex scandals in Hollywood but gentlemen I give you the best boi in the class: Fintan O’Toole. He argues that our Irish lads need to be thought to respect Irish girls. No worry that the system is already anti-boys now it must be more so whether they’ve done anything wrong or now we must treat our boys as inherently flawed as sex predators, mini Weinsteins waiting to strike.

irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-boys-must-behave-if-women-are-to-be-safe-1.3273940?__vfz=c_pages%3D4413200001568

archive.is/UDIfN#selection-1185.0-1185.647

“This wasn’t Hollywood, or a theatre, or the fashion industry, or the houses of parliament or the media world. It was ordinary, mundane. No crime was committed. If the girls complained to the police, they would be hard put to say what exactly had been done to them. They had not been touched. The verbal intimidation had not yet risen to the level of explicit threat. They had escaped before the bullying had escalated into direct physical abuse. But they had been abused nonetheless. If they did not already know it, they now know that they are vulnerable to sexual menace, even in public places. And they will know it for the rest of their lives.”

They’d be hard put to say what was done to them because nothing was done to them just what Irish boys do well cheeky banter with the girls. But they had been abused nonetheless?? Why do we have to continually teach girls they’re abused and boys that they’re bad? You can’t help wonder what country is this guy living in I’ve never seen boys threaten girls on buses or trains. What does it do for the self image of boys to tell them they’re flawed? If boys are getting worse the only thing that’s changed is today they’re being told their bad all the time.

Obviously this piece is motivated by recent events in Hollywood, what do Irish boys have to do with Harvey Weinstein?? Pathetic scoring points with women by bashing Irish boys. Genuine sex offenders should be prosecuted but why tell boys they’re always bad.

For the last 50 years men have been demonised and guilt tripped partly for the actions of a small percent like Harvey Weinstein. You might have thought there would be some resistance to this guilt tripping from our intellectual elite. You might have expect Irishmen would stick up for other Irish men and these would come form the intellectual elite of the broadsheet newspapers. Not a chance sadly after the loss of Kevin Myers there doesn’t seem to be a man of strength and integrity in the broadsheets just weasels trying to score points to show how pro-women they are.


Irish women aren’t as downtrodden as these the self-proclaimed defenders of the womyn folk love to claim. Irish women are seen as very assertive abroad as the phrase “strong Irish woman”, common in England bears out, this is hardly because Irish women are oppressed by Irish men but probably because Irish men are generally decent and easy going and allow women to assert themselves more so than in other countries. In fact many would argue it’s Irish men are brow beaten. While most Irish women are decent a significant proportion Irish women have the have a tendency to snarl viciously at men and be generally nasty. If you ever have worked abroad with an Irish women you’ll realise this isn’t normal in the outside world, you’d realise how horrified foreign men are this isn’t as socially acceptable as it is in Ireland and you’ll start to grasp that Irish women have privileges no one else has and certainly that Irish men aren’t anti-women.

It’s difficult enough in this day and age for Irish men and boys to assert themselves with Irish women given how obsessed we all are to women’s victimhood and the excessively PC nature of Irish society with Irish men desperate for approval. Irish girls can be extremely vicious and sly as cases of bullying and suicides attest to but it would be even harder than ever for boys to stand up to them were the whole system is on the side of girls. The biggest problem with young boys is that they’re alienated from the system they’ve sensed the all powerful nature of female victimhood how girls can treat them like dirt but the system will always side with girls in a serious dispute in the end of the day. Now in order to do some self promotion someone like O’Toole wants the system to be more firmly against boys.

Female victimhood has grown in to an all powerful beast Fintan O’Toole has figured its far safer to side with this beast than will boys who might need his help far more. If he was honest he’d know boys are attacked in Irish towns and cities vastly more than girls its just that we don’t care about them. Certainly in my teens and early twenties I was in fear about getting attacked or knifed at different places on a night out or sometimes during the day, in a way girls didn’t have to worry about. But the great and the good like Fintan didn’t care, most of his type would probably have told me to man up.

Such men seeking social approval can be very politically correct and weasely but this takes some beating of course O’Toole would never talk about teaching girls to respect Irish boys so terrified he’d be of incurring the wrath of Irish women or having someone call him a mean name like misogynist far easier to bash Irish boys.

_Brian

He’s writing this stuff to be seen and get a reaction.

Pointless making threads about guys like this, it just does exactly what they want - discuss them and their ideas.

Next time you see an article like this just screw your eyes up to heave and then don’t spread tue notion around even further by discussing it, it’s a self perpetuating thing if you do.

Maleligned

_Brian wrote: »

He’s writing this stuff to be seen and get a reaction.

Pointless making threads about guys like this, it just does exactly what they want - discuss them and their ideas.

Next time you see an article like this just screw your eyes up to heave and then don’t spread tue notion around even further by discussing it, it’s a self perpetuating thing if you do.

I don't understand your whole point. Does this mean we can't discuss anything because we would only be promoting that person's ideas??

LLMMLL

You've read far more into the article than was actually in it.

Discussing appropriate behaviour in sex Ed class such as not following girls when they've moved to get away from you is not going to traumatise young men.

Maleligned

LLMMLL wrote: »

You've read far more into the article than was actually in it.

Discussing appropriate behaviour in sex Ed class such as not following girls when they've moved to get away from you is not going to traumatise young men.

How do you know what these proposals are about?

If you know anything about the sex ed classes proposed in the US you know its a lot more than that and of course it makes the ever important threat to boys that ultimately the system is on the side of women in the final analysis. This is hardly good given that so many boys are alienated from the system.

This guy is jumping to the conclusion that they're going to rape the girls.
How many rapes on trains and buses have we had in the history of the state?

Don't you see that this reflects a hysteria that's taken over in the last few decades where every boy/man is a sex offender waiting to strike?

One eyed Jack

Y'know, I actually completely agree with him on one point, and one point alone, but I also think he doesn't go far enough -


Boys have to learn how to be good men – and men have to teach them.


It's also the responsibility of women to teach boys how to be good men... and to ensure they never grow up to write such a pile of unadulterated drivel as I've read in that article.

I would also suggest that the same responsibility is on everyone in society to ensure young girls would never grow up to write such a pile of unadulterated drivel either.

silverharp

there must be a resistance point a bit like telling poor people not to shoplift or rob cars? :pac:

jackboy

LLMMLL wrote: »

Discussing appropriate behaviour in sex Ed class such as not following girls when they've moved to get away from you is not going to traumatise young men.

It is clear sexism. Much better if both sexes are told not to plague people.

SEPT 23 1989

Sorry but how many of us were taught to be good men ?

It comes naturally to treat women right

maybe the headbangers who preach this nonsense have deep issues of their own

LLMMLL

Maleligned wrote: »

How do you know what these proposals are about?

If you know anything about the sex ed classes proposed in the US you know its a lot more than that and of course it makes the ever important threat to boys that ultimately the system is on the side of women in the final analysis. This is hardly good given that so many boys are alienated from the system.

This guy is jumping to the conclusion that they're going to rape the girls.
How many rapes on trains and buses have we had in the history of the state?

Don't you see that this reflects a hysteria that's taken over in the last few decades where every boy/man is a sex offender waiting to strike?

No he said nothing about them potentially raping girls. Where did you get that? He was concerned about their intimidating behaviour. I've seen nothing to suggest that Fintan O'Toole is proposing anything harmful to.young men.

silverharp

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Sorry but how many of us were taught to be good men ?

It comes naturally to treat women right

maybe the headbangers who preach this nonsense have deep issues of their own

id put more effort into telling your boys and girls how to find good men and women

mzungu

LLMMLL wrote: »

No he said nothing about them potentially raping girls. Where did you get that? He was concerned about their intimidating behaviour. I've seen nothing to suggest that Fintan O'Toole is proposing anything harmful to.young men.

Not those exact words...

I don’t think these were particularly bad lads. Individually, they looked sweet and awkward, with that male adolescent way of not quite knowing what to do with their limbs, how to hold themselves, how to occupy space. I don’t think they gave any thought to the reality that when the seven of them surrounded those girls, it looked like a pack cornering its prey, that the threat in the air was the threat of bodily domination, the scent of rape. They were just high on being out in the city, on being together in a gang, on being able to invade a public space and assert their dominance over everyone in it – and all the better that this act of assertion carried a sexual charge.

We are at a very important moment in the history of behaviour, and specifically in the history of male behaviour towards women. Women have begun to find a public voice for deep private knowledge. There is a great calling-out going on and many famous and admired men will be named – as they should and must be. But as I watched this horrible little drama on Sunday evening, I couldn’t help wondering whether anything will really change if we are still raising our boys like this. Those lads have most likely already forgotten what they did – and those who forget are condemned to repeat. They had a little moment of exhilarating sexual power. If they ever find themselves with power over girls or women later in life will some of them not be drawn back to that forgotten moment, to that dark thrill?

The inference is there. Those boys could some day become predators. Quite the dystopian journey on the Luas!

That said, while the article is a bit muddled, if his point is that children need to be taught boundaries (ie. refrain from the activities he outlines) then I would fully agree. I think most would tbh.

Even that point gets lost when he delivers this gem...

The right has succeeded in redefining good manners as “political correctness”; progressives need to reclaim good manners as the necessary rules of decent conduct.

Who exactly are "the right" he refers to here? Fianna Fail? Fine Gael? And how exactly have they, or anybody else, redefined what manners are in Ireland? Or is talking about America here, and transplanting the buzzwords and hysteria to an Irish setting in the hope it can all gel together nicely?

I had half forgotten being cornered myself by a group of boys as a schoolgirl on a bus, until I read that. I don't think it would hurt to make sure that everyone is aware - male and female - of the effects of intimidation.

The boys who no doubt saw themselves as having a laugh with me probably never really realized how frightening it is for a girl to be hemmed in by a group of people whose intentions you don't know and from whom you know you can't easily escape should things take a turn. Everyone should be taught that even if you think it's all in fun it can be perceived as bullying, and if you make even mildly lewd remarks it can literally terrify the 'victim' - and if that victim is a girl the lewd remark can be perceived as much more significant than it's intended to be. We are taught to be cautious and situationally aware of possible threats, to take responsibility for the situations we find ourselves in, after all.

There are people who will deliberately refuse to see the other side of this and claim 'the left' are trying to steer all male/female interaction into sanitzed, PC robotic approved pathways, but anyone with a little empathy can surely see that intimidation doesn't have to mean explicit threats.

His language was unnecessary and hyperbolic, but the message is sound and doesn't have to be framed as gender specific. I'm all for teaching people to respect each other.

ThunbergsAreGo

Candie wrote: »

I had half forgotten being cornered myself by a group of boys as a schoolgirl on a bus, until I read that. I don't think it would hurt to make sure that everyone is aware - male and female - of the effects of intimidation.

The boys who no doubt saw themselves as having a laugh with me probably never really realized how frightening it is for a girl to be hemmed in by a group of people whose intentions you don't know and from whom you know you can't easily escape should things take a turn. Everyone should be taught that even if you think it's all in fun it can be perceived as bullying, and if you make even mildly lewd remarks it can literally terrify the 'victim' - and if that victim is a girl the lewd remark can be perceived as much more significant than it's intended to be. We are taught to be cautious and situationally aware of possible threats, to take responsibility for the situations we find ourselves in, after all.

There are people who will deliberately refuse to see the other side of this and claim 'the left' are trying to steer all male/female interaction into sanitzed, PC robotic approved pathways, but anyone with a little empathy can surely see that intimidation doesn't have to mean explicit threats.

His language was unnecessary and hyperbolic, but the message is sound and doesn't have to be framed as gender specific. I'm all for teaching people to respect each other.

I agree on this part and I am sorry for your bad experience.

I think the bit people have problems is the framing of men vs women, its seems to be anti equality.

A groups of boys hemming ANYONE is not good behaviors and could traumatize anyone (especially if of a certain nature). That is just bullying regardless of the gender

leggo

I remember being a teenager and being told by another guy the best way to kiss a girl in one of those teen discos was to corner them and basically just keep leaning in until they relent. I remember hanging out with a group of guys and feeling really uncomfortable when they just started grabbing girls in a group from behind and feeling their breasts, I mean of course I wanted to touch boobs too but they looked really uncomfortable with it so I didn't. I remember a gang I knew telling us they used to play a game called 'walky-stalky' in the local shopping centre: you see a few nice-looking girls then follow them around and if they sit down or stop it means they're interested and it's gameball to approach them.

I also get the frustration with society trying to shame me for being a man, as if it's implicit that I'm all of these things because of the gender I was born when I've done none of it myself and remember being specifically uncomfortable and offended when I saw/heard all of these things even at a young age and not understanding the world. I do, I get it, believe me it's something I've struggled and raged with at varying stages over the past few months. But then I remember that this stuff was the norm for young boys and that nobody did teach us what was or wasn't okay so we were all just left to guess one day when the hormones started raging and we wanted to attract women. I talk to women I know and not one of them doesn't have a story like this.

The lazy argument to say is that the people doing this are creeps, to make boogeymen out of them as exceptions to deflect guilt. But it wasn't the exception growing up, that was the norm and if you didn't carry on that way, you were me and you couldn't buy a shift for love nor money. It's also easy to say these were just alpha types and that's where the toxic masculinity lies, but I've also known loads of stereotypical 'nice guys' (the shy type they make movies about getting the hot girl in the end because...yay! Inner beauty!) and there you have the lads who'd get drunken confidence and grope girls, grab them on the dancefloor, punch walls because of sexual frustration when someone rejected them, that kinda stuff.

It's a thing lads. Sorry, I hate it too, but it is. And people denying it are either in their own little bubble or remind me of the people in America who shrug off racism while KKK clans are literally on camera marching and chanting horrible racist things, i.e. they're fighting to protect the world they're comfortable in no matter how disgusting it is.

Maleligned

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know, I actually completely agree with him on one point, and one point alone, but I also think he doesn't go far enough -


Boys have to learn how to be good men – and men have to teach them.


It's also the responsibility of women to teach boys how to be good men... and to ensure they never grow up to write such a pile of unadulterated drivel as I've read in that article.

I would also suggest that the same responsibility is on everyone in society to ensure young girls would never grow up to write such a pile of unadulterated drivel either.

Yea well conspicously absent is you're requirement for us to teach girls to be good. You're trying to be brave but terrified of saying anything that might be seen as vaguely anti women hence proving my point that we've become very PC in the last 20 years.

Maleligned

LLMMLL wrote: »

No he said nothing about them potentially raping girls. Where did you get that? He was concerned about their intimidating behaviour. I've seen nothing to suggest that Fintan O'Toole is proposing anything harmful to.young men.

You need to read the article before you start trolling.

Maleligned

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Y'know, I actually completely agree with him on one point, and one point alone, but I also think he doesn't go far enough -


Boys have to learn how to be good men – and men have to teach them.


It's also the responsibility of women to teach boys how to be good men... and to ensure they never grow up to write such a pile of unadulterated drivel as I've read in that article.

I would also suggest that the same responsibility is on everyone in society to ensure young girls would never grow up to write such a pile of unadulterated drivel either.

What unadulterated drivel?

Maleligned

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Sorry but how many of us were taught to be good men ?

It comes naturally to treat women right

maybe the headbangers who preach this nonsense have deep issues of their own

I believe when men do treat women badly its because they resent the system being so pro-women and anti-men. And its usually those who parade their moral superiority that are abusing women anyway.

ThunbergsAreGo

Maleligned wrote: »

I believe when men do treat women badly its because they resent the system being so pro-women and anti-men. And its usually those who parade their moral superiority that are abusing women anyway.

No some men mistreat women because they are absolute jerks

One eyed Jack

Maleligned wrote: »

Yea well conspicously absent is you're requirement for us to teach girls to be good. You're trying to be brave but terrified of saying anything that might be seen as vaguely anti women hence proving my point that we've become very PC in the last 20 years.

It's not conspicuously absent for the want of being politically correct or being afraid of anything, it's because your point is completely irrelevant to mine. I have nothing against women, so why would I even think the same way as you appear to think of women?

It's completely irrelevant in a thread where the focus of the article was on boys behaviour and the author witnessing it but doing nothing about it himself, then bemoaning the fact that other men aren't like him.

I'm really glad they're not, tbh.

Maleligned

naughtb4 wrote: »

I agree on this part and I am sorry for your bad experience.

Thanks for confirming my point you feel guilty for the actions of other men, we've been guilt tripped for the last 50 years.

naughtb4 wrote: »

I think the bit people have problems is the framing of men vs women, its seems to be anti equality.

If you're going to make a point be clearer in what you're saying I'm framing not framing the issue as Men Versus Women. I'm framing is as Men V Men. Some overly politically correct men are very anti-men.

Maleligned

Candie wrote: »

I had half forgotten being cornered myself by a group of boys as a schoolgirl on a bus, until I read that. I don't think it would hurt to make sure that everyone is aware - male and female - of the effects of intimidation.

The boys who no doubt saw themselves as having a laugh with me probably never really realized how frightening it is for a girl to be hemmed in by a group of people whose intentions you don't know and from whom you know you can't easily escape should things take a turn. Everyone should be taught that even if you think it's all in fun it can be perceived as bullying, and if you make even mildly lewd remarks it can literally terrify the 'victim' - and if that victim is a girl the lewd remark can be perceived as much more significant than it's intended to be. We are taught to be cautious and situationally aware of possible threats, to take responsibility for the situations we find ourselves in, after all.

There are people who will deliberately refuse to see the other side of this and claim 'the left' are trying to steer all male/female interaction into sanitzed, PC robotic approved pathways, but anyone with a little empathy can surely see that intimidation doesn't have to mean explicit threats.

His language was unnecessary and hyperbolic, but the message is sound and doesn't have to be framed as gender specific. I'm all for teaching people to respect each other.

I guarantee that most men have countless experiences where they were in fear of being attacked or were attacked its just that we see everything through the lenses of girls are twenty times more important than boys. Contrast threats of violence to boys to vaguely lewd remarks your own inbuilt prejudices are on display here.

ThunbergsAreGo

Maleligned wrote: »

Thanks for confirming my point you feel guilty for the actions of other men, we've been guilt tripped for the last 50 years.

Whhaaatt??

She was the victim of bullying, no matter what gender I would say the same

I am sorry victims of bullying have to experience what they do

kunst nugget

Maleligned wrote: »

I believe when men do treat women badly its because they resent the system being so pro-women and anti-men. And its usually those who parade their moral superiority that are abusing women anyway.

Christ almighty, you've some chip on your shoulder. What you have come out with there is utterly bizarre.

Some men have always been assholes and been abusive to women, no matter what way the chips were stacked.

Leggo's post above is a good example of why educating young guys is important (and young girls as well, since that seems a particular bee in your bonnet). When I was a teenager in the nineties, groups of lads that I was in talked about women in shameful ways - that one's fecking frigid, that one's a total slut, etc. Guys did shítty, lecherous things to women and there was nothing said about it because beyond knowing rape was wrong, we had no knowledge of how things like harassment could affect girls. We would just say that the guy was being a dick without doing anything about it… We learn our behaviour from our peers in the absence of any direction from our betters - and for a long time in Ireland, our parents and our school system just ignored these issues. I would have had pretty much zero advice from my parents beyond be nice to girls and don't get them pregnant without any expansion beyond that. School was pretty much the same. Giving young guys (and girls) a bit of guidance in these matters might give them pause for thought on the consequences of their actions and make a decent world for all around. Fintan's article is completely ott but if you think there's no merit in teaching young guys how to respect young girls or that it amounts to an anti-men plot, then I think you're starting to lose grip on reality.

Or should I just go with 'oh, no! the wimminz are attacking me again for being a man!!!'

kunst nugget

Maleligned wrote: »

Thanks for confirming my point you feel guilty for the actions of other men, we've been guilt tripped for the last 50 years.

Ah, here. If I'm at a funeral and I'm talking to a family member of the deceased, I'll say 'I'm sorry for your troubles'. Not because I feel guilty that the person died, it's because I'm trying to be empathetic to the situation they are in.

That's what naughtb4 was doing.

El_Duderino 09

Maleligned wrote: »

I believe when men do treat women badly its because they resent the system being so pro-women and anti-men. And its usually those who parade their moral superiority that are abusing women anyway.

Where do you get those beliefs from? That men who treat women badly because they resent the system and the ones who treat women badly are usually the ones who are stage their moral superiority.

What’s that based on?

Maleligned

naughtb4 wrote: »

Whhaaatt??

She was the victim of bullying, no matter what gender I would say the same

I am sorry victims of bullying have to experience what they do

Look men are the victims of bullying all the time but it has to be ten times worse before it registers.

Maleligned

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ah, here. If I'm at a funeral and I'm talking to a family member of the deceased, I'll say 'I'm sorry for your troubles'. Not because I feel guilty that the person died, it's because I'm trying to be empathetic to the situation they are in.

That's what naughtb4 was doing.

Your making an equivalence between this women who was hassled with lewd comments 20 years ago and a case where someone's mother, father or family member died.

Thanks for proving my point again that we see women's troubles as ten times more important than mens.

kunst nugget

Maleligned wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point again that we see women's troubles as ten times more important than mens.

Eh, how in the world did I do that?

Triceratops Ballet

Maleligned wrote: »

Your making an equivalence between this women who was hassled with lewd comments 20 years ago and a case where someone's mother, father or family member died.

Thanks for proving my point again that we see women's troubles as ten times more important than mens.

yeah, that's BS! If Candie came in here and said it happened to her yesterday, people can still empathise with her about a bad experience she had, in the same way that when I tell people my mother died 6 years ago they still say "oh I'm sorry" you sir are looking for an issue where there is none.

I suggest you look up the meaning of empathy

Maleligned

kunst nugget wrote: »

Christ almighty, you've some chip on your shoulder. What you have come out with there is utterly bizarre.

Some men have always been assholes and been abusive to women, no matter what way the chips were stacked.

Leggo's post above is a good example of why educating young guys is important (and young girls as well, since that seems a particular bee in your bonnet). When I was a teenager in the nineties, groups of lads that I was in talked about women in shameful ways - that one's fecking frigid, that one's a total slut, etc. Guys did shítty, lecherous things to women and there was nothing said about it because beyond knowing rape was wrong, we had no knowledge of how things like harassment could affect girls. We would just say that the guy was being a dick without doing anything about it… We learn our behaviour from our peers in the absence of any direction from our betters - and for a long time in Ireland, our parents and our school system just ignored these issues. I would have had pretty much zero advice from my parents beyond be nice to girls and don't get them pregnant without any expansion beyond that. School was pretty much the same. Giving young guys (and girls) a bit of guidance in these matters might give them pause for thought on the consequences of their actions and make a decent world for all around. Fintan's article is completely ott but if you think there's no merit in teaching young guys how to respect young girls or that it amounts to an anti-men plot, then I think you're starting to lose grip on reality.

Or should I just go with 'oh, no! the wimminz are attacking me again for being a man!!!'

First of all I think its you need to get a grip.
I’m talking about a hysteria that’s over taken Ireland over the last 30 years where men get upset where another guy says something that’s vaguely pro-men.
We are far more upset at the tiniest infringements of women over major things that happen men is that logical? Why is that?

The reason is we’ve been guilt tripped in to self hatred and attack other men.
By getting so emotional and hysterical and trying to abuse me you’ve proven my point again that Irish men have been so guilt tripped to be anti other men.

After all I’m saying we shouldn’t be demonising boys, we shouldn’t be treating boys as sex offenders waiting to strike. If you didn’t get so upset you’d start to see that’s quite reasonable. Yes we should be teaching our young people to treat others better but this should cover girls also. Girls can be far more destructive when they bully even resulting in some suicide cases, is making some lewd comments worse than such bullying?

We all know that there are examples of boys being rude to girls but there are as many cases of girls being rude and nasty to boys and of course boys mistreating boys is perhaps the worst of all. We should be educating our kids to treat others properly not jumping on the bandwagon abusing boys. We have a blind spot for these cases of mistreatment of boys we tend to say boys must man-up. You use the expression: “we had no knowledge of how things like harassment could affect girls.” Indicates your exclusive concern for one gender not the other.

Fintan’s article is reflective of this excessive political correctness that women are always right, men are always wrong. Such thinking has only led to excessive reactions from men who’ve suddenly found that they’re powerless in an anti-men society. As a member of our intellectual elite Fintan should be using his intellect not his emotions and it doesn’t help if some guy jumps on the bandwagon to score points on it.

We need to calm down and have a more balanced conversation about the way our society has gone how it demonises men and boys. Huge changes have happened in the last 30 years not all of them for the good. When we men aren’t filled with self hatred or reacting emotionally or attacking other men then we can more rationally discuss how best to educate our boys and girls to treat others properly.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Article is in Fintan's usual overwrought mode.

But saying "don't abuse girls" is not abuse of boys. Teaching either gender that society is deliberately out to get them and has been for decades is far more damaging imo.

I'm very excited to see which point of yours I've proved with this post and whether I'm being hysterical and or emotional.

Maleligned

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

yeah, that's BS! If Candie came in here and said it happened to her yesterday, people can still empathise with her about a bad experience she had, in the same way that when I tell people my mother died 6 years ago they still say "oh I'm sorry" you sir are looking for an issue where there is none.

I suggest you look up the meaning of empathy

Forget the smart alec nonsense I know what the word empathy means.
But if a guy was hit by some other guy 20 years ago would you emphatise?

silverharp

maybe islam has it right on this point ,reintroduce chaperoning? it seems to be the way things are going and in the work place introduce the "Mike Pence" rule

Triceratops Ballet

Maleligned wrote: »

But if a guy was hit by some other guy 20 years ago would you emphatise?

20 years ago, 20 mins ago it doesn't matter really, of course I would, why wouldn't I?

if a bloke came along now and told the exact same story as Candie, I would empathise with him, it's a sh1t thing to have happen to you!

Pat Mustard

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-boys-must-behave-if-women-are-to-be-safe-1.3273940

Fintan O'Toole wrote:

I was about the stand up and shout at the boys and risk whatever would come next, when the tram pulled in to the next station.

Brave man, Fintan.

You almost did something about it.

Hypocrite.

Maleligned

kunst nugget wrote: »

Eh, how in the world did I do that?

You're getting very tedious now you need to start reading the post before trolling. The answer to this question is written on the post you answered. There are two simple sentences so it shouldn't be too difficult to read both.


Not sure why you're on this board at all. If you're not able to follow a post then don't comment starting to see why you type the nonsense you do.

kunst nugget

Maleligned wrote: »

You're getting very tedious now you need to start reading the post before trolling. The answer to this question is written on the post you answered. There are two simple sentences so it shouldn't be too difficult to read both.


Not sure why you're on this board at all. If you're not able to follow a post then don't comment starting to see why you type the nonsense you do.

You said:

I believe when men do treat women badly its because they resent the system being so pro-women and anti-men.

And you accuse me of trolling and typing nonsense? G'wan with yourself…

Maleligned

kunst nugget wrote: »

You said:



And you accuse me of trolling and typing nonsense? G'wan with yourself…

Your getting confused again. We were discussing the following post:

kunst nugget wrote: »

Eh, how in the world did I do that?

But the answer was just the sentence before it:

Maleligned wrote: »

Your making an equivalence between this women who was hassled with lewd comments 20 years ago and a case where someone's mother, father or family member died.

Thanks for proving my point again that we see women's troubles as ten times more important than mens.

You're not helping by causing more confusion. You're again confirming my statement that you're getting confused and not able for this message board. Throwing in more silliness for the sake of it isn't helping the discussion.
Please don't get involved in the discussion if its just to add more confusion it wastes everyone's time yours and mine but even more so anyone trying to make sense of your comments.

leggo

We get it maleligned. We got it as soon as we read your username.

tritium

Pat Mustard wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-boys-must-behave-if-women-are-to-be-safe-1.3273940


Brave man, Fintan.

You almost did something about it.

Hypocrite.

Forgetting the main article for a minute, wasn't Fintan also one of the clowns who 'almost' stood for election a few years ago.

A life full of what ifs and regrets is what i see with someone like Fintan, the ultimate hurler on the ditch

Pat Mustard

tritium wrote: »

Forgetting the main article for a minute, wasn't Fintan also one of the clowns who 'almost' stood for election a few years ago.

A life full of what ifs and regrets is what i see with someone like Fintan, the ultimate hurler on the ditch

You don't mean George Lee?

kunst nugget

Pat Mustard wrote: »

You don't mean George Lee?

He made rumblings about running for the 2011 election but bottled it in the end…

Here is his article about why he wouldn't be bothering…

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-decision-that-i-made-on-contesting-this-general-election-1.1280015

johnnyskeleton

leggo wrote: »

The lazy argument to say is that the people doing this are creeps, to make boogeymen out of them as exceptions to deflect guilt.

On the contrary, that is precisely the issue. The people doing the bad behaviour are the bad people, that should be the take home message.

The narrative that effectively removes personal responsibility from the individuals who knowingly harass and intimidate women and instead lumps the blame on all men collectively is wrong for two reasons:

1. It absolves disrespectful harrassers of direct responsibility, and they are merely helpless products of their gender.

2. It impugns respectful non-harrassers by association.

Add into the mix the complicating factor that no feminist, particularly male feminists, want to acknowledge i.e. that a lot of women expressly and implicitly encourage disrespectful, harrassing behaviour in men (i.e. desiring the bad boy or admiring persistence) while discouraging respectful behaviour in men for being weak, not sexually attractive, boring or not sufficiently interesting to pay attention to, and you end up with a heady brew.

So basically what you call a lazy argument is actually a reasonable and valid response to an individuals bad behaviour. What you advocate is extrapolating the specific to the general which is a logical fallacy. Worse, the path you advocate is guaranteed to lead to unhappiness on the part of any man who actually listens to it, and unless it is followed by every single man uniformly, will only make a neglible difference to womens lives.

But it wasn't the exception growing up, that was the norm and if you didn't carry on that way, you were me and you couldn't buy a shift for love nor money. It's also easy to say these were just alpha types and that's where the toxic masculinity lies, but I've also known loads of stereotypical 'nice guys' (the shy type they make movies about getting the hot girl in the end because...yay! Inner beauty!) and there you have the lads who'd get drunken confidence and grope girls, grab them on the dancefloor, punch walls because of sexual frustration when someone rejected them, that kinda stuff.

I dont like the americanisms like "alpha" or the negative associations of "nice guy" being a ruse for secret abusers, but it does illustrate the fact that women reward the asserted bad behaviour and discourage the good behaviour, leading to frustration on the part of the men who try to be nice. They do what women say they want and are ignored for doing so. The men who ignore what women say are desired by women. But of course any suggestion that women are attracted to violent abusers and so in turn bear responsibility for encouraging them simply cannot be articulated outside of anonymous message boards.

It's a thing lads. Sorry, I hate it too, but it is. And people denying it are either in their own little bubble or remind me of the people in America who shrug off racism while KKK clans are literally on camera marching and chanting horrible racist things, i.e. they're fighting to protect the world they're comfortable in no matter how disgusting it is.

Thats funny, because the feminist message sounds to me very like the message of the catholic church. All men are sinners, but if you do exactly what we tell you then maybe you will be redeemed. But probably not, because we make, change and arbitrate the rules to suit ourselves. And we can excommunicate you if you break our rules so it doesnt really matter to us whether you have a better life or not, so long as you live in a perpetual state of submission.

El_Duderino 09

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Add into the mix the complicating factor that no feminist, particularly male feminists, want to acknowledge i.e. that a lot of women expressly and implicitly encourage disrespectful, harrassing behaviour in men (i.e. desiring the bad boy or admiring persistence) while discouraging respectful behaviour in men for being weak, not sexually attractive, boring or not sufficiently interesting to pay attention to, and you end up with a heady brew.

There’s an interesting argument at play here. The assertion that women like the bad boy and that encourages boys to behave badly. It’s true to an extent. No denying that some women like a bad boy. Some women have multiple abusive boyfriends so either they pick abusing men, abusive men pick them, they cause the men to be abusive or pure bad luck-or a mix of each. I’d imagine the women choose abusive men and vise versa I’ve listened to interviews with women who marry violent men in prison Charles Branson is getting married again soon. The women get a violent protector but are safe from him because he’s locked away in prison.

Some women like characteristics like impulsivity, rebelliousness, extroversion, devil may care attitude. In isolation those men might well get those girls. But I think you’ll also find that men with those characteristics will also get in trouble more often than average because of those traits.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that if those bad boys show bad behaviour to the women who like it, they’ll be fine. If they show bad behaviour to women who don’t like it, they could easily end up in trouble.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont like the americanisms like "alpha" or the negative associations of "nice guy" being a ruse for secret abusers, but it does illustrate the fact that women reward the asserted bad behaviour and discourage the good behaviour, leading to frustration on the part of the men who try to be nice. They do what women say they want and are ignored for doing so. The men who ignore what women say are desired by women. But of course any suggestion that women are attracted to violent abusers and so in turn bear responsibility for encouraging them simply cannot be articulated outside of anonymous message boards

As above, some women are attracted to violent abusers. So when a man turns violent and abusive on a woman who doesn’t appreciate those traits, what do you think should happen? Who’s in the wrong? The violently abusive man? The women who seek violent abusers? Or the woman who didn’t appreciate the violent abuse? It seems clear cut to me.

Before anyone asks about violent women, I’m responding to a specific point about abusive men. Abusive women = abusive men. I don’t think there’s any reason to treat them differently.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There’s an interesting argument at play here. The assertion that women like the bad boy and that encourages boys to behave badly. It’s true to an extent. No denying that some women like a bad boy. Some women have multiple abusive boyfriends so either they pick abusing men, abusive men pick them, they cause the men to be abusive or pure bad luck-or a mix of each. I’d imagine the women choose abusive men and vise versa I’ve listened to interviews with women who marry violent men in prison Charles Branson is getting married again soon. The women get a violent protector but are safe from him because he’s locked away in prison.

Some women like characteristics like impulsivity, rebelliousness, extroversion, devil may care attitude. In isolation those men might well get those girls. But I think you’ll also find that men with those characteristics will also get in trouble more often than average because of those traits.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that if those bad boys show bad behaviour to the women who like it, they’ll be fine. If they show bad behaviour to women who don’t like it, they could easily end up in trouble.


As above, some women are attracted to violent abusers. So when a man turns violent and abusive on a woman who doesn’t appreciate those traits, what do you think should happen? Who’s in the wrong? The violently abusive man? The women who seek violent abusers? Or the woman who didn’t appreciate the violent abuse? It seems clear cut to me.

Before anyone asks about violent women, I’m responding to a specific point about abusive men. Abusive women = abusive men. I don’t think there’s any reason to treat them differently.

I dont think thats the issue through. More pertinent imho is whether you should exclusively blame/educate men and boys for behaviour that is valued by a wider range of society. Surely theres an accountability on the rest of society here too?

johnnyskeleton

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There’s an interesting argument at play here. The assertion that women like the bad boy and that encourages boys to behave badly. It’s true to an extent. No denying that some women like a bad boy. Some women have multiple abusive boyfriends so either they pick abusing men, abusive men pick them, they cause the men to be abusive or pure bad luck-or a mix of each. I’d imagine the women choose abusive men and vise versa I’ve listened to interviews with women who marry violent men in prison Charles Branson is getting married again soon. The women get a violent protector but are safe from him because he’s locked away in prison.

Some women like characteristics like impulsivity, rebelliousness, extroversion, devil may care attitude. In isolation those men might well get those girls. But I think you’ll also find that men with those characteristics will also get in trouble more often than average because of those traits.

So it shouldn’t be a surprise that if those bad boys show bad behaviour to the women who like it, they’ll be fine. If they show bad behaviour to women who don’t like it, they could easily end up in trouble.

I agree with all of the above. Which is why I believe in the system that we currently have, which punishes individuals for bad behaviour and not their entire gender.

As above, some women are attracted to violent abusers. So when a man turns violent and abusive on a woman who doesn’t appreciate those traits, what do you think should happen? Who’s in the wrong? The violently abusive man? The women who seek violent abusers? Or the woman who didn’t appreciate the violent abuse? It seems clear cut to me.

Before anyone asks about violent women, I’m responding to a specific point about abusive men. Abusive women = abusive men. I don’t think there’s any reason to treat them differently.

I also agree with the above. Which is also why I believe in the system that we currently have, which punishes individuals for bad behaviour and not their entire gender.

Therefore, it should not be acceptable to say "we need to teach boys/men/girls/women" anything when our evidence is based on the behaviour of individual boys/men/girls/women.

leggo

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

On the contrary, that is precisely the issue. The people doing the bad behaviour are the bad people, that should be the take home message.

The narrative that effectively removes personal responsibility from the individuals who knowingly harass and intimidate women and instead lumps the blame on all men collectively is wrong for two reasons:

1. It absolves disrespectful harrassers of direct responsibility, and they are merely helpless products of their gender.

2. It impugns respectful non-harrassers by association.

Add into the mix the complicating factor that no feminist, particularly male feminists, want to acknowledge i.e. that a lot of women expressly and implicitly encourage disrespectful, harrassing behaviour in men (i.e. desiring the bad boy or admiring persistence) while discouraging respectful behaviour in men for being weak, not sexually attractive, boring or not sufficiently interesting to pay attention to, and you end up with a heady brew.

So basically what you call a lazy argument is actually a reasonable and valid response to an individuals bad behaviour. What you advocate is extrapolating the specific to the general which is a logical fallacy. Worse, the path you advocate is guaranteed to lead to unhappiness on the part of any man who actually listens to it, and unless it is followed by every single man uniformly, will only make a neglible difference to womens lives.



I dont like the americanisms like "alpha" or the negative associations of "nice guy" being a ruse for secret abusers, but it does illustrate the fact that women reward the asserted bad behaviour and discourage the good behaviour, leading to frustration on the part of the men who try to be nice. They do what women say they want and are ignored for doing so. The men who ignore what women say are desired by women. But of course any suggestion that women are attracted to violent abusers and so in turn bear responsibility for encouraging them simply cannot be articulated outside of anonymous message boards.



Thats funny, because the feminist message sounds to me very like the message of the catholic church. All men are sinners, but if you do exactly what we tell you then maybe you will be redeemed. But probably not, because we make, change and arbitrate the rules to suit ourselves. And we can excommunicate you if you break our rules so it doesnt really matter to us whether you have a better life or not, so long as you live in a perpetual state of submission.

This is one of the most disturbing posts I've read on here in a long time. You went the scenic route, but basically you made the argument that women are asking to be harassed or abused.

I never made the argument that women go for 'bad boys', that's such a lazy argument cobbled together by frustrated men trying to make excuses for being too passive and letting the world pass them by ("I'm not getting laid because I'm so perfect, it's not my problem, it's the world's").

In fact, I made the exact opposite argument that even stereotypical 'nice guys' I've met are just as likely to be creepy. You obviously see yourself as the former so you said "I think it's disturbing that you hinted at that" (I never hinted that just because someone is 'nice' they will do this, I made the point that you can't just deflect this based off social status or personality type and that I've seen guilty parties across the board) while you completely bought into the stereotype that 'bad boys' are all guilty of this because women 'reward' them. You've read what you wanted into my point to suit your world view then discarded the part that didn't suit. That world view is so ignorant of the real world, I don't know where to begin. Should I start at "When a man and a woman love each other very much..."?

The reality is, your mother has gone through this in some way in her lifetime. If you have a sister? So has she. Every single woman has a story about being harassed and receiving excessive, unwanted attention from men. That doesn't mean that all men are guilty or 'sinners', but it does mean that there is a societal problem in how men are educated about what is and isn't okay when dealing with women. I never received those classes in school during the early 00's, did you?

You simply haven't opened up your eyes or talked to enough women open-mindedly if you don't see it, and the fact that you're rationalising the behaviour of abusers with lazy stereotypes like saying that women are asking for it disturbs the **** out of me tbh.

tritium

leggo wrote: »

This is one of the most disturbing posts I've read on here in a long time. You went the scenic route, but basically you made the argument that women are asking to be harassed or abused.

I never made the argument that women go for 'bad boys', that's such a lazy argument cobbled together by frustrated men trying to make excuses for being too passive and letting the world pass them by ("I'm not getting laid because I'm so perfect, it's not my problem, it's the world's").

In fact, I made the exact opposite argument that even stereotypical 'nice guys' I've met are just as likely to be creepy. You obviously see yourself as the former so you said "I think it's disturbing that you hinted at that" (I never hinted that just because someone is 'nice' they will do this, I made the point that you can't just deflect this based off social status or personality type and that I've seen guilty parties across the board) while you completely bought into the stereotype that 'bad boys' are all guilty of this because women 'reward' them. You've read what you wanted into my point to suit your world view then discarded the part that didn't suit. That world view is so ignorant of the real world, I don't know where to begin. Should I start at "When a man and a woman love each other very much..."?

The reality is, your mother has gone through this in some way in her lifetime. If you have a sister? So has she. Every single woman has a story about being harassed and receiving excessive, unwanted attention from men. That doesn't mean that all men are guilty or 'sinners', but it does mean that there is a societal problem in how men are educated about what is and isn't okay when dealing with women. I never received those classes in school during the early 00's, did you?

You simply haven't opened up your eyes or talked to enough women open-mindedly if you don't see it, and the fact that you're rationalising the behaviour of abusers with lazy stereotypes like saying that women are asking for it disturbs the **** out of me tbh.

Wow i realky struggle to see how you got to that interpretation from that post.

Dial in the outrage and read it in the context of social norms and it should read quite differently to you.

BtwI find it particularly disturbing (outrage) that you comment theres a societal problem with how men are educated about women instead of how people are educated about each other.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

I dont think thats the issue through. More pertinent imho is whether you should exclusively blame/educate men and boys for behaviour that is valued by a wider range of society. Surely theres an accountability on the rest of society here too?

Well, the blame part is easy. You blame the transgressors.

I’m usually in favour of educating people when these danger involved. But what would the message be? You could warm women that some women like bad boys and that encourages bad boy behaviour do they should be wary of these bad boys. Or you could encourage women not to like bad boys- not likely to be remotely successful imo.

Seriously, what would the message to girls be?

I think the best approach is to educate everyone and most effort should be put into educating the transgressors rather than the potential victims. I think it would be very difficult to do a widespread education campaign without being accused of presuming all men are potential rapists which is a real pinch point for a lot of regular posters.

Do what would the education message actually be to each group?