Modern Malaise in Ireland

Intothesea

"Before the late 20th century, a job furnished not only security, but also an identity and an orientation to living. The original meaning of the word, “career,” was a carriage road and, as it came to be applied to vocations, a clear way ahead—a prepared path. This no longer is the case. Career counseling clients are now told to expect 11 job changes over their working lives (Sennett, 1998). The neo-liberal context of employment is perpetually transitional. It demands and exploits a workforce that is global, dis-embedded, mobile, and flexible. In many sectors, lifelong vocations are being replaced by job portfolios composed of short-term projects and contracts."

From: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/teo-a0038960.pdf


Initially, and according to what I've written in other threads lately, I thought men were in a better position relative to women, given their ability to be freer agents in the jobs market even now. That is, I pretty much assumed that neo-liberal policies weren't capable of toppling the normal state of affairs (men in more stable jobs, women more on the lower-paid less secure periphery). Because of this, I wasn't able to understand the apparent depth of responses I've inadvertently provoked. Even though the boom itself tended to re-polarize the sexes (still seen in sales materials today -- businesses haven't given up on drumming up trade by being unfair to one sex or the other), and fingers were pointed to the 'other' side across the newly-rendered divide after the crash, it still doesn't explain why a proportion of Irish men are still feeling significant negative affects of the whole affair.


Anyway, I think it's fair to say that a cause of malaise is the newly emerged idea of 'career'. As given in the quote above, the traditional idea has been overturned in favour of that suiting the demands of a fickle neo-liberal market. According to innate gender differences, (i.e. not arguable) men will feel naturally daunted by an unsure path to (in sharp contrast with women) self actualization. Women can roll with an unsure or badly-defined path relatively successfully due to their derivation of secure sense of self more from an ability to be flexible, fit in, create children, and tend to family). Because of this, I think it's quite difficult for the average woman to realize exactly how emotionally and psychologically important it is for a man to chart the course of his own life on his own terms, using the gifts of his own brilliance and insight to do it.


When job definitions and company structures were overseen by people on the ground and in the community with no regard for world-market finance, men's need to define themselves thusly was naturally understood, respected, and accommodated. Today, conglomerates of the international super-rich provoke unpredictable needs for changing skills and approaches. If ever there was a reality designed to upend men's sense of security, this is it, while women can withstand this more fickle approach naturally.


Outside of this, it's necessary to consider how neo-liberal market need translates into an unbalanced demand for women over men in the relatively unskilled part of the market -- the part of the market most important to men seeking to start their great courses. Is the same imbalance evident in England, for example? I suspect that this effect is largely a result of local interpreters of world market need. That is, Irish company heads are on the neo-liberal wagon to such a degree that they have tunnel vision and can only see 'flexibility' as being the desired end. It is a short sighted (and socially irresponsible) move to hire more women than men regardless of capability for junior jobs. The government should step in to mandate a just antidote to this, I think, on the basis that any psychologist can outline the potential long-term negative consequences of making the starting playing field unfair for young men. As well, there seems to be an inherent declaration in this that the way of the financial future is necessarily feminine, hence Blind Boy Boatclub's sage advice to do what neo-feminists order, and become women. To any average-brained man, this is what this nonsense sounds like, and rightly so.


And last into the mix, on top of this negative state of flux for men, is a factor that no-one could ever expect on top of this massive discomfort -- the wholesale blame and complaints from the neo-feminist side of the equation. I imagine that a set of unwarranted complaints has never been quite so untimely or damaging. Their conception of the problem, in cohesion with the conception of local market interpreters, is that men are simply too masculine, given their need to operate on a more definite and determinable footing in reality. Hence the impossible demand that men join them in the future on planet neo feminism, admission: losing your innate self-concept and hailing illogical and destructive neo-feminism ideals forevermore.


Anyway, according this this, I think all normal men and women should campaign and lobby the government for a normal fairness in entry jobs admissions as a matter of social justice, and across the whole spectrum after that. It's technically an act of social destruction for the government to keep the neo-liberal lassez-faire stance on this part of the equation. As well, it wouldn't be a bad idea to campaign in the direction of local market fielders who reckon their expedient approach is just.


In keeping with the idea of a thread, I would like your ideas and information about this part of the picture. This is as good as I can do from a few thousand miles away and nothing but the internet to give me a a clue. :pac:

Red_Wake

I'm not reading that. Give me a summary you twunt.

Pintman Paddy Losty

Lots of the store brand ones like Lidl and Aldis offerings don't really taste great. It's one of the few products I'll stick to brand name with.

Hellman's for me every time.

Intothesea

tl/dr read it yourself, or don't bother replying.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Intothesea

Well folks, you're losing a chance to comment on men's situation in Ireland, and to potentially open up a decent debate that beats the usual to and fro.

super_furry

TL:DR - It's the wimins fault!

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

super_furry

Intothesea wrote: »

Well folks, you're losing a chance to comment on men's situation in Ireland, and to potentially open up a decent debate that beats the usual to and fro.

Yes because if there's one thing that's lacking in After Hours, it's needlessly wordy anti-feminism rants.

Intothesea

Well, hopefully people who want to think about the issue will be along later.

Canis Lupus

Lots of reading for AH to be honest.

jimgoose

Get back to that barista machine you wooly-hat wearing little bollix. Get your beard re-ginned on your own dime.

Guy:Incognito

Make sure to use all the words. !!!

DrumSteve

Some worthy points in there but

a) This is AH

b) That's far too many words for AH.

diomed

Stop saying "neo-liberal".

diomed

MicroSoft Word 5% auto-summarize says

The neo-liberal context of employment is perpetually transitional.
According to innate gender differences men will feel naturally daunted by an unsure path to self actualization.
It is a short sighted move to hire more women than men regardless of capability for junior jobs.

Still full of big words.

conorhal

See, this is what we get as a result of the mods forcing a pillow over the face of the Politics board while whispering ...'shush, now, you're going to a better place where there is no more wrongthink'.....


Thanks mods!

Boom_Bap

Intothesea wrote: »

Well, hopefully people who want to think about the issue will be along later.

How many men like mayonnaise though?
We need statistics first.

super_furry

Boom_Bap wrote: »

How many men like mayonnaise though?
We need statistics first.

Keep up, men aren't allowed to like mayonnaise because women are been gifted junior jobs.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Intothesea wrote: »

Well, hopefully people who want to think about the issue will be along later.

I wanted to, but the OP just waffles on and on and on and on.

What are you trying to say?

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

Keep up, men aren't allowed to like mayonnaise because women are been gifted junior jobs.

Doesn't help that mayonnaise is white either...

looksee

"You've got to be nice to men because they haven't had as much practice at being put down as women have"

Diddums.

bloodless_coup

Intothesea wrote: »

"Before the late 20th century, a job furnished not only security, but also an identity and an orientation to living. The original meaning of the word, “career,” was a carriage road and, as it came to be applied to vocations, a clear way ahead—a prepared path. This no longer is the case. Career counseling clients are now told to expect 11 job changes over their working lives (Sennett, 1998). The neo-liberal context of employment is perpetually transitional. It demands and exploits a workforce that is global, dis-embedded, mobile, and flexible. In many sectors, lifelong vocations are being replaced by job portfolios composed of short-term projects and contracts."

From: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/teo-a0038960.pdf


Initially, and according to what I've written in other threads lately, I thought men were in a better position relative to women, given their ability to be freer agents in the jobs market even now. That is, I pretty much assumed that neo-liberal policies weren't capable of toppling the normal state of affairs (men in more stable jobs, women more on the lower-paid less secure periphery). Because of this, I wasn't able to understand the apparent depth of responses I've inadvertently provoked. Even though the boom itself tended to re-polarize the sexes (still seen in sales materials today -- businesses haven't given up on drumming up trade by being unfair to one sex or the other), and fingers were pointed to the 'other' side across the newly-rendered divide after the crash, it still doesn't explain why a proportion of Irish men are still feeling significant negative affects of the whole affair.


Anyway, I think it's fair to say that a cause of malaise is the newly emerged idea of 'career'. As given in the quote above, the traditional idea has been overturned in favour of that suiting the demands of a fickle neo-liberal market. According to innate gender differences, (i.e. not arguable) men will feel naturally daunted by an unsure path to (in sharp contrast with women) self actualization. Women can roll with an unsure or badly-defined path relatively successfully due to their derivation of secure sense of self more from an ability to be flexible, fit in, create children, and tend to family). Because of this, I think it's quite difficult for the average woman to realize exactly how emotionally and psychologically important it is for a man to chart the course of his own life on his own terms, using the gifts of his own brilliance and insight to do it.


When job definitions and company structures were overseen by people on the ground and in the community with no regard for world-market finance, men's need to define themselves thusly was naturally understood, respected, and accommodated. Today, conglomerates of the international super-rich provoke unpredictable needs for changing skills and approaches. If ever there was a reality designed to upend men's sense of security, this is it, while women can withstand this more fickle approach naturally.


Outside of this, it's necessary to consider how neo-liberal market need translates into an unbalanced demand for women over men in the relatively unskilled part of the market -- the part of the market most important to men seeking to start their great courses. Is the same imbalance evident in England, for example? I suspect that this effect is largely a result of local interpreters of world market need. That is, Irish company heads are on the neo-liberal wagon to such a degree that they have tunnel vision and can only see 'flexibility' as being the desired end. It is a short sighted (and socially irresponsible) move to hire more women than men regardless of capability for junior jobs. The government should step in to mandate a just antidote to this, I think, on the basis that any psychologist can outline the potential long-term negative consequences of making the starting playing field unfair for young men. As well, there seems to be an inherent declaration in this that the way of the financial future is necessarily feminine, hence Blind Boy Boatclub's sage advice to do what neo-feminists order, and become women. To any average-brained man, this is what this nonsense sounds like, and rightly so.


And last into the mix, on top of this negative state of flux for men, is a factor that no-one could ever expect on top of this massive discomfort -- the wholesale blame and complaints from the neo-feminist side of the equation. I imagine that a set of unwarranted complaints has never been quite so untimely or damaging. Their conception of the problem, in cohesion with the conception of local market interpreters, is that men are simply too masculine, given their need to operate on a more definite and determinable footing in reality. Hence the impossible demand that men join them in the future on planet neo feminism, admission: losing your innate self-concept and hailing illogical and destructive neo-feminism ideals forevermore.


Anyway, according this this, I think all normal men and women should campaign and lobby the government for a normal fairness in entry jobs admissions as a matter of social justice, and across the whole spectrum after that. It's technically an act of social destruction for the government to keep the neo-liberal lassez-faire stance on this part of the equation. As well, it wouldn't be a bad idea to campaign in the direction of local market fielders who reckon their expedient approach is just.


In keeping with the idea of a thread, I would like your ideas and information about this part of the picture. This is as good as I can do from a few thousand miles away and nothing but the internet to give me a a clue. :pac:

Quote

Boom_Bap

super_furry wrote: »

Keep up, men aren't allowed to like mayonnaise because women are been gifted junior jobs.

But what if I like mayonnaise. Do you not ever do that thing where you mix it with ketchup? Is it technically mayonnaise then?

topper75

If they ever change it to Hellwomans, the pikes will be brought out from under the thatch.

diomed

Tip
On After Ours we like posts that are short, sarcastic, and politically incorrect.

Ten of Swords

Boom_Bap wrote: »

But what if I like mayonnaise. Do you not ever do that thing where you mix it with ketchup? Is it technically mayonnaise then?

That's a rudimentary Marie Rose sauce right there,

You're probably making op cry btw!

bullpost

Its all academic - the Robots are coming.
Gender fluid automatons are the future.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

tabby aspreme

super_furry wrote: »

Keep up, men aren't allowed to like mayonnaise because women are been gifted junior jobs.

Be careful, one of the main ingredients of mayonnaise is hen ovaries, and men don't want to be eatin them .

super_furry

Ten of Swords wrote: »

That's a rudimentary Marie Rose sauce right there,

You're probably making op cry btw!

Hellmans being changed to Marie Rose! It's all on be conspiracy to castrate men!

They're coming for your mickeys lads!