Activism versus Discussion thread

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. I’ll answer your questions, but do you think you could do it without the snarky comments?

I asked you a couple of questions in that last post. Snarky comments about how I can’t get the tricky bits, don’t address those questions.

So if you please, If you think you can achieve change in things like getting support services for men’s domestic violence victims, or changes to the family court system, by cleaning your room etc, then do please explain how.

To answer your questions, I think activism is powerful and has huge potential for good or bad.

I’ve no idea how to differentiate the non-ideological differences between feminists or far right or men’s domestic violence support services activists or repeal the 8th activists. I’d say the primary difference is that the men’s domestic violence support services activists are virtually non existent. What do you think the differences are?

Is this going to be like the questions about Hillary Clinton and leadership characteristics? We’ll see if you ever get back to this or if you focus your next response on another withering put down, yawn. Only time will tell.

I honestly haven’t been intentionally snarky to you. If anything I felt I’d been quite balanced given how often you’ve managed to misstate the points I’ve made. Trying to make those points more lucid is why I’ve taken this approach.

The differences between activists: let’s think about how self aware someone is at an individual level. If that’s very low (“sheep”) then there’s little or no critical consideration of the validity of what they support. In that case there’s not a lot of real (non ideological) difference between any two activists in that role. They do what they’re told, or they do what the herd does. Stick a different label on and they’d be the same. On the other hand, an activist with high individual awareness and reason - now that’s something else altogether. With that capacity they can begin to engage with their movement and perhaps shape it. You asked what the point of that Hilary question was - that’s the point. Hilary has that awareness, and has clearly shaped a movement to fit her (I’d argue used the movement but morality isn’t part of this). That’s (one) difference. Put simply, Hilary has most definitely cleaned her room, probably twice.

To me clean your room isn’t a rallying cry for the masses, it’s a respectful suggestion to the individual. If you want to always just work as part of the herd you’ll never actually benefit from trying it. However you can be empirically certain that within any successful movement in here are people who are individually congruent enough that they’ve availed of that suggestion. They’re the ones who actually steer the ship for the most part.

Is activism necessary? It’s certainly one mechanism to achieve change, though as I pointed out previously there are others. Lobbying works. So does embedding yourself within the levers of power. Best yet is probably to actually become the levers of power a la Trump. Most people who successfully take these routes I’d argue have also demonstrably cleaned their rooms. Ultimately achieving change reduces to directing power and influence and anything that can do that can achieve change. Activism can of course be the motor of a campaign but without that self awareness from leader figures it may as well be a supertanker going around in a vast circle. In particular if you go the activism route then activism isn’t all you need, you need that aware intellectual capital to have a viable movement- and you need it first. At their core feminists have a number of people with that attribute btw.

I noted earlier how it takes time to build a critical mass around that. It took the left 40 years to build mass in the universities. I’d imagine with social media newer campaigns can and will be quicker but there’s still time needed. The danger of course is that in the rush to stop more moderate goals their political opponents will just push people to far more extreme groups that already have more groundwork done. You can already see that in events like Brexit.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

I honestly haven’t been intentionally snarky to you. If anything I felt I’d been quite balanced given how often you’ve managed to misstate the points I’ve made. Trying to make those points more lucid is why I’ve taken this approach.

The differences between activists: let’s think about how self aware someone is at an individual level. If that’s very low (“sheep”) then there’s little or no critical consideration of the validity of what they support. In that case there’s not a lot of real (non ideological) difference between any two activists in that role. They do what they’re told, or they do what the herd does. Stick a different label on and they’d be the same. On the other hand, an activist with high individual awareness and reason - now that’s something else altogether. With that capacity they can begin to engage with their movement and perhaps shape it. You asked what the point of that Hilary question was - that’s the point. Hilary has that awareness, and has clearly shaped a movement to fit her (I’d argue used the movement but morality isn’t part of this). That’s (one) difference. Put simply, Hilary has most definitely cleaned her room, probably twice.

To me clean your room isn’t a rallying cry for the masses, it’s a respectful suggestion to the individual. If you want to always just work as part of the herd you’ll never actually benefit from trying it. However you can be empirically certain that within any successful movement in here are people who are individually congruent enough that they’ve availed of that suggestion. They’re the ones who actually steer the ship for the most part.

Is activism necessary? It’s certainly one mechanism to achieve change, though as I pointed out previously there are others. Lobbying works. So does embedding yourself within the levers of power. Best yet is probably to actually become the levers of power a la Trump. Most people who successfully take these routes I’d argue have also demonstrably cleaned their rooms. Ultimately achieving change reduces to directing power and influence and anything that can do that can achieve change. Activism can of course be the motor of a campaign but without that self awareness from leader figures it may as well be a supertanker going around in a vast circle. In particular if you go the activism route then activism isn’t all you need, you need that aware intellectual capital to have a viable movement- and you need it first. At their core feminists have a number of people with that attribute btw.

I noted earlier how it takes time to build a critical mass around that. It took the left 40 years to build mass in the universities. I’d imagine with social media newer campaigns can and will be quicker but there’s still time needed. The danger of course is that in the rush to stop more moderate goals their political opponents will just push people to far more extreme groups that already have more groundwork done. You can already see that in events like Brexit.

Ah you got back to the Hillary Clinton question. I was wondering if that was going anywhere. The point was that Hillary Clinton has a tidy room and she shaped her movement.

That's grand. And there are so many ways to argue about Hillary Clinton that you can go and direction you want with that. Have your point.

"In particular if you go the activism route then activism isn’t all you need, you need that aware intellectual capital to have a viable movement- and you need it first. At their core feminists have a number of people with that attribute btw". This bit is amusing. I might hold on to it and quote you when people bang on about how unhinged the feminists are. It suits to go with that line of argument now but it would be laughed out of the thread if you said it in any other context.

Look the feminists have more sheep and shepherds than the men's rights movement has. That's why they make so much progress and men's rights doesn't. I think your stretching the sheep analogy btw. Some people are sheep in tidy towns meetings, shepherds in the gaa club and middle managers in work.

You might be studying up and reading the 12 steps to enlightenment, with the intention to make a difference in the world, but if you don't intend to be a leader in some new innovative movement, then you'd actually be better as a sheep In a worthwhile movement. The men's movement needs a lot more sheep than shepherds. Interminable navel gazing is the solution to absolutely nothing.

Have you noticed that your whole point about Hillary Clinton still relies on her being an activist? Running for president is fairly extreme activism but its serious activism and campaigning to cause changes.

fly_agaric

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know who has the best chance of influencing the course content. The ones who make an effort to shape it will be most likely to shape it. I wonder will it be mostly men’s interest groups or female interest groups?

I'm puzzled by your mention of "men's interest groups"!?
IMO if there were or are such groups they should not be sticking their oar in here any more than the various feminist oriented quangos.
Having some motley "mens interest groups" battling it out with these quangos to try & mould young minds sounds like a real recipe for disaster!

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Secondly, I listened to a ppdcast with Richie Saflier who delivers one of these courses to transition year students. It actually sounded brilliant. Dealt with consent and expectations and how to discuss what you want to do.

https://m.soundcloud.com/secondcaptains/bonus-episode-1124-the-belfast-rape-trial-sexual-consent-dressingroom-culture

I did not listen yet but found this. Assume it is about it
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/consent-cant-be-delivered-in-the-same-way-as-other-subjects-by-embarrassed-teachers-3937028-Apr2018/

Am uncertain about idea of such classes run for boys only + doing nothing at all comparable for girls (if that is idea?). Wonder how it works in a coed school - everyone watches the boys troop off to their special psychologist led "consent"/sex-ed class! Could be a bit awkward I'd imagine, no matter how non-judgemental and useful the content is.

El_Duderino 09

fly_agaric wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I know who has the best chance of influencing the course content. The ones who make an effort to shape it will be most likely to shape it. I wonder will it be mostly men’s interest groups or female interest groups?

I'm puzzled by your mention of "men's interest groups"!?
IMO if there were or are such groups they should not be sticking their oar in here any more than the various feminist oriented quangos.
Having some motley "mens interest groups" battling it out with these quangos to try & mould young minds sounds like a real recipe for disaster!

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Secondly, I listened to a ppdcast with Richie Saflier who delivers one of these courses to transition year students. It actually sounded brilliant. Dealt with consent and expectations and how to discuss what you want to do.

https://m.soundcloud.com/secondcaptains/bonus-episode-1124-the-belfast-rape-trial-sexual-consent-dressingroom-culture

I did not listen yet but found this. Assume it is about it
http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/consent-cant-be-delivered-in-the-same-way-as-other-subjects-by-embarrassed-teachers-3937028-Apr2018/

Am uncertain about idea of such classes run for boys only + doing nothing at all comparable for girls (if that is idea?). Wonder how it works in a coed school - everyone watches the boys troop off to their special psychologist led "consent"/sex-ed class! Could be a bit awkward I'd imagine, no matter how non-judgemental and useful the content is.

That’s how it works. I didn’t design the system. Catholics will want their concerns addressed, teachers will want various concerns addressed, charities that deal with survivors or sexual assault will want their concerns addressed etc. If nobody advocates for men, then guess what could happen. I imagine any impartial input would advocate for the boys in the situation btw.

I’ve no idea how it works in practice. It was a transition year program and I don’t know if it only happened in boys schools or what. It could be mixed but if you listen to the podcast, it’s designed to get lads talking amongst themselves. It probably wouldn’t work as well in a mixed class. In any case that’s a fair question but I don’t know the ideal solution.

But it wasn’t a consent class. It was a six week course on all kinds of issues related to sex and sexuality.

tritium

Oh dear El_D, I seem to have failed (yet again ) to convey my thoughts in a transparent manner. I had hoped that I’d removed enough subtly and nuance that my reply would be a triumph of clarity, immune to misinterpretations. However you still clearly failed to grasp the actual points, somehow managing to interpret and represent them in a radically different way.

Ok so, no point crying over spilt milk. let’s deal with the car crash of a response you gave....

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah you got back to the Hillary Clinton question. I was wondering if that was going anywhere. The point was that Hillary Clinton has a tidy room and she shaped her movement.

Well, no, (but reading my response how could you not know that?) you’re kind of reaching for what you’d like it to say I fear rather than getting the point. Since you’ve had plenty of chances to get your head around the salient point of how self aware individuals behave (and seem incapable of that) I’m going to simply suggest that you reread my reply yet again, I genuinely don’t know the value to making the same clear point again for you if you’re incapable of considering it

That's grand. And there are so many ways to argue about Hillary Clinton that you can go and direction you want with that. Have your point.

Would you find it intellectually easier if I picked someone other than Clinton?

"In particular if you go the activism route then activism isn’t all you need, you need that aware intellectual capital to have a viable movement- and you need it first. At their core feminists have a number of people with that attribute btw". This bit is amusing. I might hold on to it and quote you when people bang on about how unhinged the feminists are. It suits to go with that line of argument now but it would be laughed out of the thread if you said it in any other context.

I’m glad you find it funny, feel free to quote it later, - could you try however to not position it out of context somehow just to stick it to those terrible dastardly MRAs. That shouldn’t be too hard since I think (other posters can feel free to correct me here) that my views are pretty consistent and balanced.

I am curious though as to why you seem to interpret my thoughts on internal congruence against hinged/ unhinged? I never actually equated those two things in any way. It’s perfectly possible to have your **** together and still be a “bad” person, with “undesirable” goals or beliefs. Or not as the case may be. I think I’ve mentioned a few times that this isn’t a morality contest.

It’s a shame that you’re so immersed in your own ideology that you can only look for negativity on this forum though. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of regular posters here who actively debate both the strengths and weaknesses of feminist ideology, (as well as a great many other things of interest btw). Of course if you only have a hammer I guess every problem is a nail for you....

Look the feminists have more sheep and shepherds than the men's rights movement has. That's why they make so much progress and men's rights doesn't.

Of course it’s actually really not that simple. Again if you actually read my previous post that should be relatively clear.

I think your stretching the sheep analogy btw. Some people are sheep in tidy towns meetings, shepherds in the gaa club and middle managers in work.

Yes of course people can potentially be. Did I ever say or imply otherwise? Do you really interpret things in such binary terms when left to your own devices (“them” and “us”, hmmm...) That doesn’t make anything I said less true. Except of course now you’re reaching to stretch the definition of activist as wide as you can.. if I didn’t know you as such an honest debater I’d almost be watching my step from here. Is your average GAA club member really an activist for the GAA?

It’s worth noting however that individuality or herd is a choice to a degree, and at the extremes, the level of, you know, actual activism, I’d actually expect fairly consistent behavior. However in the middle, the folks who just for the most part get on with things, sure, why not, a bit of this, a bit of that. Who knows maybe that lack of activism is because they’ve engaged in some critical thinking...,,,

You might be studying up and reading the 12 steps to enlightenment, with the intention to make a difference in the world, but if you don't intend to be a leader in some new innovative movement, then you'd actually be better as a sheep In a worthwhile movement.

As I pointed out, a movements a movement to sheep. They don’t think too much about it. Worthwhile is subjective and to sheep it’s just a matter of who gets hold of the blank slate first. Why is feminism more worthwhile than say communism?, alt right? Hell why not Satanism? Does it promise more to your collective group? Does it feel like a safer herd? Are the benefits packages better? Without engaging critical thinking how do you answer this? It’s not about being a leader or innovating, it’s about not being a blind follower

Individuals don’t need to innovate new movements, the value they add is they think about stuff. They don’t just do what they’re told is right. Because right is subjective. -it’s “right” to defend our people: oh look there’s six million dead, it’s “right” to have communal ownership: why do we need these gulags again? It’s “right” to sacrifice to our satanic majesty: oh **** why are the police here? (Ok the last one might be a stretch) The collective is critical mass. It’s whole point is it’s hard to stop, even when it needs to be stopped. That’s what thinking individually can add positively to any movement. They help to steer the ship

Btw I’ll say it again, your obsession with Peterson really isn’t healthy. He’s shoehorned into most of your posts -Even when replying to posts on completely different topics.

The men's movement needs a lot more sheep than shepherds. Interminable navel gazing is the solution to absolutely nothing.

It’s imho very much at the stage feminism was a few decades back- easily marginalized still but gaining momentum. I’m sure they do appreciate your concern for their success though.

Have you noticed that your whole point about Hillary Clinton still relies on her being an activist? Running for president is fairly extreme activism but its serious activism and campaigning to cause changes.

Wow, you really can stretch to try to shoehorn something in can’t you. Reread my previous post again about the different ways change happens. Maybe you’ll have a lightbulb moment.....

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Oh dear El_D, I seem to have failed (yet again ) to convey my thoughts in a transparent manner. I had hoped that I’d removed enough subtly and nuance that my reply would be a triumph of clarity, immune to misinterpretations. However you still clearly failed to grasp the actual points, somehow managing to interpret and represent them in a radically different way.

Ok so, no point crying over spilt milk. let’s deal with the car crash of a response you gave....

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah you got back to the Hillary Clinton question. I was wondering if that was going anywhere. The point was that Hillary Clinton has a tidy room and she shaped her movement.

Well, no, (but reading my response how could you not know that?) Since you’ve had plenty of chances to get your head around the salient point of how self aware individuals behave (and seem incapable of that) I’m going to simply suggest that you reread my reply yet again, I genuinely don’t know the value to making the same clear point again for you if you’re incapable of considering it

That's grand. And there are so many ways to argue about Hillary Clinton that you can go and direction you want with that. Have your point.

Would you find it intellectually easier if I picked someone other than Clinton?

"In particular if you go the activism route then activism isn’t all you need, you need that aware intellectual capital to have a viable movement- and you need it first. At their core feminists have a number of people with that attribute btw". This bit is amusing. I might hold on to it and quote you when people bang on about how unhinged the feminists are. It suits to go with that line of argument now but it would be laughed out of the thread if you said it in any other context.

I’m glad you find it funny, feel free to quote it later, - could you try however to not position it out of context somehow just to stick it to those terrible dastardly MRAs. That shouldn’t be too hard since I think (other posters can feel free to correct me here) that my views are pretty consistent and balanced.

I am curious though as to why you seem to interpret my thoughts on internal congruence against hinged/ unhinged? I never actually equated those two things in any way. It’s perfectly possible to have your **** together and still be a “bad” person, with “undesirable” goals or beliefs. Or not as the case may be. I think I’ve mentioned a few times that this isn’t a morality contest.

It’s a shame that you’re so immersed in your own ideology that you can only look for negativity on this forum though. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of regular posters here who actively debate both the strengths and weaknesses of feminist ideology, (as well as a great many other things of interest btw). Of course if you only have a hammer I guess every problem is a nail for you....

Look the feminists have more sheep and shepherds than the men's rights movement has. That's why they make so much progress and men's rights doesn't.

Of course it’s actually really not that simple. Again if you actually read my previous post that should be relatively clear.

I think your stretching the sheep analogy btw. Some people are sheep in tidy towns meetings, shepherds in the gaa club and middle managers in work.

Yes of course people can potentially be. Did I ever say or imply otherwise? Do you really interpret things in such binary terms when left to your own devices (“them” and “us”, hmmm...) That doesn’t make anything I said less true. Except of course now you’re reaching to stretch the definition of activist as wide as you can.. if I didn’t know you as such an honest debater I’d almost be watching my step from here. Is your average GAA club member really an activist for the GAA?

It’s worth noting however that individuality or herd is a choice to a degree, and at the extremes, the level of, you know, actual activism, I’d actually expect fairly consistent behavior. However in the middle, the folks who just for the most part get on with things, sure, why not, a bit of this, a bit of that. Who knows maybe that lack of activism is because they’ve engaged in some critical thinking...,,,

You might be studying up and reading the 12 steps to enlightenment, with the intention to make a difference in the world, but if you don't intend to be a leader in some new innovative movement, then you'd actually be better as a sheep In a worthwhile movement.

As I pointed out, a movements a movement to sheep. They don’t think too much about it. Worthwhile is subjective and to sheep it’s just a matter of who gets hold of the blank slate first. Why is feminism more worthwhile than say communism?, alt right? Hell why not Satanism? Does it promise more to your collective group? Does it feel like a safer herd? Are the benefits packages better? Without engaging critical thinking how do you answer this? It’s not about being a leader or innovating, it’s about not being a blind follower

Individuals don’t need to innovate new movements, the value they add is they think about stuff. They don’t just do what they’re told is right. Because right is subjective. -it’s “right” to defend our people: oh look there’s six million dead, it’s “right” to have communal ownership: why do we need these gulags again? It’s “right” to sacrifice to our satanic majesty: oh **** why are the police here? (Ok the last one might be a stretch) The collective is critical mass. It’s whole point is it’s hard to stop, even when it needs to be stopped. That’s what thinking individually can add positively to any movement. They help to steer the ship

Btw I’ll say it again, your obsession with Peterson really isn’t healthy. He’s shoehorned into most of your posts -Even when replying to posts on completely different topics.

The men's movement needs a lot more sheep than shepherds. Interminable navel gazing is the solution to absolutely nothing.

It’s imho very much at the stage feminism was a few decades back- easily marginalized still but gaining momentum. I’m sure they do appreciate your concern for their success though.

Have you noticed that your whole point about Hillary Clinton still relies on her being an activist? Running for president is fairly extreme activism but its serious activism and campaigning to cause changes.

Wow, you really can stretch to try to shoehorn something in can’t you. Reread my previous post again about the different ways change happens. Maybe you’ll have a lightbulb moment.....

That was a wordy response but cutting out the snarky remarks makes it much shorter.

I wasn’t equating being active in the gaa club to activism, it’s an example of how people can play different roles in different aspects of their lives. It’s why your sheep = self unaware doesn’t work half as well as you seem to think it does.

I also doubt anyone joins a movement blindly. It takes a lot of conscious effort to go door to door, arrange a meeting with a political groups, get on mass media. You call these people sheep but it’s a fairly poor analogy beyond being easy to say.

As for Hillary Clinton, I very definitely am saying she’s an activist. You said yourself that she shaped a movement to fit her goals. That seems like a fairly clear example of campaigning to cause change.

My concern for the success of men’s rights is genuine. There’s an interesting phenomenon of mistaking complaining about feminists’ success, with men’s rights.

See above. Poster points out another example of an rte show about domestic violence which only focused on female victims (i didn't see the show myself). Then I say that the way to get attention for men’s DV victims is to campaign for it. Make the public aware that it exists and that it’s not being addressed. Cue pages of yourself telling me that activism isn’t the way to cause change. Self improvement is the first step.

Self improvement is irrelevant unless you plan up use your powers of insight to change things. Otherwise it’s irrelevant to the topic. Self improvement is grand. But if you never get involved in changing things, then you’re beside the point no matter how self aware and terribly clever you clearly consider yourself to be.

Donnielighto

tritium wrote: »

Oh dear El_D, I seem to have failed (yet again ) to convey my thoughts in a transparent manner. I had hoped that I’d removed enough subtly and nuance that my reply would be a triumph of clarity, immune to misinterpretations. However you still clearly failed to grasp the actual points, somehow managing to interpret and represent them in a radically different way.

Ok so, no point crying over spilt milk. let’s deal with the car crash of a response you gave....



Well, no, (but reading my response how could you not know that?) you’re kind of reaching for what you’d like it to say I fear rather than getting the point. Since you’ve had plenty of chances to get your head around the salient point of how self aware individuals behave (and seem incapable of that) I’m going to simply suggest that you reread my reply yet again, I genuinely don’t know the value to making the same clear point again for you if you’re incapable of considering it



Would you find it intellectually easier if I picked someone other than Clinton?



I’m glad you find it funny, feel free to quote it later, - could you try however to not position it out of context somehow just to stick it to those terrible dastardly MRAs. That shouldn’t be too hard since I think (other posters can feel free to correct me here) that my views are pretty consistent and balanced.

I am curious though as to why you seem to interpret my thoughts on internal congruence against hinged/ unhinged? I never actually equated those two things in any way. It’s perfectly possible to have your **** together and still be a “bad” person, with “undesirable” goals or beliefs. Or not as the case may be. I think I’ve mentioned a few times that this isn’t a morality contest.

It’s a shame that you’re so immersed in your own ideology that you can only look for negativity on this forum though. Off the top of my head I can think of a number of regular posters here who actively debate both the strengths and weaknesses of feminist ideology, (as well as a great many other things of interest btw). Of course if you only have a hammer I guess every problem is a nail for you....



Of course it’s actually really not that simple. Again if you actually read my previous post that should be relatively clear.


Yes of course people can potentially be. Did I ever say or imply otherwise? Do you really interpret things in such binary terms when left to your own devices (“them” and “us”, hmmm...) That doesn’t make anything I said less true. Except of course now you’re reaching to stretch the definition of activist as wide as you can.. if I didn’t know you as such an honest debater I’d almost be watching my step from here. Is your average GAA club member really an activist for the GAA?

It’s worth noting however that individuality or herd is a choice to a degree, and at the extremes, the level of, you know, actual activism, I’d actually expect fairly consistent behavior. However in the middle, the folks who just for the most part get on with things, sure, why not, a bit of this, a bit of that. Who knows maybe that lack of activism is because they’ve engaged in some critical thinking...,,,



As I pointed out, a movements a movement to sheep. They don’t think too much about it. Worthwhile is subjective and to sheep it’s just a matter of who gets hold of the blank slate first. Why is feminism more worthwhile than say communism?, alt right? Hell why not Satanism? Does it promise more to your collective group? Does it feel like a safer herd? Are the benefits packages better? Without engaging critical thinking how do you answer this? It’s not about being a leader or innovating, it’s about not being a blind follower

Individuals don’t need to innovate new movements, the value they add is they think about stuff. They don’t just do what they’re told is right. Because right is subjective. -it’s “right” to defend our people: oh look there’s six million dead, it’s “right” to have communal ownership: why do we need these gulags again? It’s “right” to sacrifice to our satanic majesty: oh **** why are the police here? (Ok the last one might be a stretch) The collective is critical mass. It’s whole point is it’s hard to stop, even when it needs to be stopped. That’s what thinking individually can add positively to any movement. They help to steer the ship

Btw I’ll say it again, your obsession with Peterson really isn’t healthy. He’s shoehorned into most of your posts -Even when replying to posts on completely different topics.



It’s imho very much at the stage feminism was a few decades back- easily marginalized still but gaining momentum. I’m sure they do appreciate your concern for their success though.



Wow, you really can stretch to try to shoehorn something in can’t you. Reread my previous post again about the different ways change happens. Maybe you’ll have a lightbulb moment.....

Your posts on this have been patronising over the last page or two. Haven't read back further but good luck getting discourse, you're actively discouraging it by belittling the other poster repeatedly.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

In another thread, there has been a long discussion about whether discussion of an issue is a worthwhile endeavour or whether discussion and proselytism are useless compared to activism.

If discussion is to continue, it should do so in this thread, in order to prevent other threads wandering off topic.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That was a wordy response but cutting out the snarky remarks makes it much shorter.

I wasn’t equating being active in the gaa club to activism, it’s an example of how people can play different roles in different aspects of their lives.

Which I acknowledged. But that’s irrelevant in terms of their role as activists

It’s why your sheep = self unaware doesn’t work half as well as you seem to think it does.

Except it’s not the context it’s was given. You could equally say a car doesn’t work well as an airplane. It’s perfectly true but just because they’re both forms of transport doesn’t mean anyone’s making that claim in the first place

I also doubt anyone joins a movement blindly. It takes a lot of conscious effort to go door to door, arrange a meeting with a political groups, get on mass media. You call these people sheep but it’s a fairly poor analogy beyond being easy to say.

You do all that stuff after you join a movement, not before. I’m sure it took a lot of conscious effort to walk out into machine guns at the Somme too, that didn’t necessarily make them self aware individuals when they signed up.

Conscious effort =/= self awareness

As for Hillary Clinton, I very definitely am saying she’s an activist. You said yourself that she shaped a movement to fit her goals. That seems like a fairly clear example of campaigning to cause change.

From the examples I gave earlier as an agent of change Hilary is more seeking to either embed herself within the levers of power or indeed becoming the levers. Basically she’s more like Trump than an on the ground activist. Every step she’s taken in her career has been about positioning herself and those around her- that’s not a bad thing by the way (not a morality contest) it’s typically how those with political aspirations work.

My concern for the success of men’s rights is genuine. There’s an interesting phenomenon of mistaking complaining about feminists’ success, with men’s rights.

Good for you. I look forward to seeing you either out campaigning, providing intellectual capital or working one of the many other levers of change on behalf of men who need that help

See above. Poster points out another example of an rte show about domestic violence which only focused on female victims (i didn't see the show myself). Then I say that the way to get attention for men’s DV victims is to campaign for it. Make the public aware that it exists and that it’s not being addressed. Cue pages of yourself telling me that activism isn’t the way to cause change. Self improvement is the first step.

Isn’t the poster making that point raising awareness of that issue and the fact it wasn’t represented? Everyone who reads that post will have access to that opinion. Doesn’t t highlight male DV victims by definition. Does that sort of comparitative activity have a place in invoking change? What do you benchmark equality and fairness against?

By the way I never said activism isn’t the way to achieve anything. My issue is with your point that activism is all that achieves change. If you actually consider my earlier posts I’ve given many examples of other things that do this, as well as why activism by itself is insufficient. I’ve also pointed out that you’ve misunderstood the concept of self improvement- you don’t self improve the collective you self improve the individual. I also explained what’s in that for both the individual and the collective.

Self improvement is irrelevant unless you plan up use your powers of insight to change things. Otherwise it’s irrelevant to the topic. Self improvement is grand. But if you never get involved in changing things, then you’re beside the point no matter how self aware and terribly clever you clearly consider yourself to be.

I broadly agree from a changingbthe world perspective however without individuals who are willing to self improve the collective becomes a rudderless hulk going around in circles

(Self improvement serves more than social change but that’s a different topic)

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

Oxford student who stabbed her boyfriend admits she will 'never become a heart surgeon' as she loses appeal

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/06/08/oxford-university-student-avoided-prison-stabbing-boyfriend/

So an instance of female-on-male domestic violence.

Yet article includes the following:

How to spot signs of domestic abuse
Do you suspect that a friend or relative is being abused? These are the five questions to ask yourself. By Richinda Taylor of Eva Women’s Aid

-Has she withdrawn from social life? If she is no longer attending social events or welcoming visitors to her home, this is one of the telltale signs. Likewise, if she only ever leaves home with her potential abuser, or is always in a rush to get home with a curfew to stick to.
- Has her behaviour changed markedly? For example is she routinely cancelling appointments? Or is her appearance different to usual?
- Is she reluctant to discuss her home life, even when directly questioned about it?
- Have you noticed unexplained or suspicious marks? These could include bruises or grazes that she dismisses as accidental.
- Is there evidence that her spending is being controlled? Another telltale sign is if she no longer carries money with her.
If you believe a friend is a victim, call the free, confidential 24-hour National Domestic Violence Helpline: 0808 2000 247

Another example of the kind of work men's groups could be doing. Fair play to Eva Women's Aid. Getting their message out.

Its only a pity there isn't an equally powerful men's domestic violence aid group.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Another example of the kind of work men's groups could be doing. Fair play to Eva Women's Aid. Getting their message out.

Its only a pity there isn't an equally powerful men's domestic violence aid group.

I don’t think anyone would dream of criticizing Eva women’s aid for taking an opportunity to get their message out, as you say, fair play I’m sure they jumped at the chance to contribute to a national newspaper.

I would question however the cop on and / or intent of that national newspaper to use a women’s support domestic violence piece in the middle of a story that centers on a female perpetrator and male victim of intimate partner violence

It’s especially odd to understand, where there are far more established and vocal services for male victims in the UK , for example the mankind initiative

http://www.mankind.org.uk

These are a fantastic bunch actually, last year they held their fifth national conference highlighting this issue and will hold another in November this year. Not bad for a group highlighting an issue that was actively denied by many people until relatively recently.

I’d actually encourage you to peruse their website el_D, I think you might be very presently surprised at the level of activity on there

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Another example of the kind of work men's groups could be doing. Fair play to Eva Women's Aid. Getting their message out.

Its only a pity there isn't an equally powerful men's domestic violence aid group.

I don’t think anyone would dream of criticizing Eva women’s aid for taking an opportunity to get their message out, as you say, fair play I’m sure they jumped at the chance to contribute to a national newspaper.

I would question however the cop on and / or intent of that national newspaper to use a women’s support domestic violence piece in the middle of a story that centers on a female perpetrator and male victim of intimate partner violence

It’s especially odd to understand, where there are far more established and vocal services for male victims in the UK , for example the mankind initiative

http://www.mankind.org.uk

These are a fantastic bunch actually, last year they held their fifth national conference highlighting this issue and will hold another in November this year. Not bad for a group highlighting an issue that was actively denied by many people until relatively recently.

I’d actually encourage you to peruse their website el_D, I think you might be very presently surprised at the level of activity on there

Yeah fair play, I attended a fund raiser for mankind last year. They're doing exactly the kind of thing I love to see more of and in Ireland.

El_Duderino 09

erudec wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

On any given example, how easy is it to find a feminist to talk about it? How easy is it to find a men’s rights advocate to talk about it?

Paddy Jackson ‘assumed consent’ which stood up in court. But it left 5 people in a horrible situation for years after. Educating boys and girls about the law and about what happens in practice and how to have conversations about consent is a really strong way to address the issue.

How easy would it be to find a feminists to shape a discussion about consent? How easy would it be to find a men’s rights advocate to shape a discussion about consent?

Who gets to decide what "education" to give?

This is exactly how the course content is created and revised. As I said, it’s shaped by interested and vocal stakeholders.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0612/969888-ifpa_rse/

I still haven’t heard what exactly a men’s interest group would want to include in the course, but they’ll have to make do with the existent and vocal groups who are taking part in the evidence session.

It’s great that the course is being modernised. It’s out of date and doesn’t keep up with the reality of young people on the ground.

It doesn’t cover the nuances of important issues like the nature of consent and it completely ignores the most common reason people have sex which is for intimacy and pleasure. It doesn’t focus on sexual techniques or fetishes - porn teaches young people about that.

Great development and fair play to all the vocal groups who are in a position to get their message included in the course creation process.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

Government apologises for hurt and stigma inflicted on gay men



The Government has apologised to thousands of gay men criminalised by the State for their sexuality and for the hurt and stigma inflicted on them and their families.

Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan offered a State apology to the men for the effect of laws denying them the right to live without fear and for the failure of tolerance in Irish society.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar admitted the apology would not erase the wrong that was done but said society had learned from the men’s suffering.

Continues at:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/government-apologises-for-hurt-and-stigma-inflicted-on-gay-men-1.3536709

That was great news for men and men’s rights. An acknowledgment of an injustice committed against men and an apology from the state ,through the Taoiseach.

It shows how things can be changed if you only wish hard enough (and campaign and lobby relentlessly and in spite of opposition).

Fair play to all the men and women who campaigned over the decades to change the laws and change how society viewed sexuality and sexual orientation.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. You do t think ‘brain optional’ is a pejorative? Okey dokey

Sheep, as you call them, The sheep march, they campaign, they provide the bulk of the movement, the momentum. They’re the ones who carry the ball over the line. You acknowledge all that and still need to oppose my point that campaigning etc. achieves change.

All you need is a few people with their sh1t together and a load of sheep, to use your phrase, and you can achieve change. But Peterson says you need to set your house in perfect order before you criticise the world. So now you need to pretend the way to achieve societal change is tidy your room etc. first.

Look, the feminists, dreadful creatures that they are, campaign and achieve all sorts of change. The men are t doing likewise and don’t achieve anything like the same social change.

I think you’ve come around to the idea that a movement only needs key people with their sh1t together and the bulk can be as bad as one can describe the feminists to be. They get things done. Maybe all the men who are in opposition to the idea that campaigning is the main thing that causes change, have tidy, beautiful rooms. Maybe they’re still beavering away, setting their own house in perfect order before they criticise the world. But I doubt it.

I think they’re just being lazy. Sitting around criticising the fact that there aren’t men’s shelters for domestic violence, criticising the medical screening for female diseases and lack of analogous men’s services, criticising the family court system, criticising the dreaded feminists who haven’t even got their own house in order but they’re causing societal change.

The sooner Peterson writes a campaigning manual the better.

Men are either too busy working and feeding their families so their wives and daughters can go marching with their iPhone Xs or sitting in basements smoking weed and masturbating. A good recession and mass unemployment and THEN you will see what men can do as a group. Generally it isn't pretty.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

Men are either too busy working and feeding their families so their wives and daughters can go marching with their iPhone Xs or sitting in basements smoking weed and masturbating. A good recession and mass unemployment and THEN you will see what men can do as a group. Generally it isn't pretty.

Joking or serious?

That sounds a lot like something one might read in a news report. ‘Before he turned the gun on himself he posted a message on social media saying...’

silverharp

There are limits to getting things done, once there is a court system in place and a non suicidal government men can't exactly be targeted,many voters are mothers and wives and will vote accordingly.
If for exampke certain professions become toxic for men say teaching, government jobs or certain large private sector companies, you can bitch and moan which serves a purpose but mostly better to move to new pastures rather than waiting for the system to fix your life.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

There are limits to getting things done, once there is a court system in place and a non suicidal government men can't exactly be targeted,many voters are mothers and wives and will vote accordingly.
If for exampke certain professions become toxic for men say teaching, government jobs or certain large private sector companies, you can bitch and moan which serves a purpose but mostly better to move to new pastures rather than waiting for the system to fix your life.

I've no idea what you're saying here. Suicidal government and bitch and moan.

Is the government now suicidal?

Is bitching and moaning activism in the paragraph above? Or does it mean complaining without activating?

silverharp

It was in the context of the previous comment of men having better things to do. Once there is a decent court system and a reasonable government ,then better just highlight and avoid the landmines.

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

It was in the context of the previous comment of men having better things to do. Once there is a decent court system and a reasonable government ,then better just highlight and avoid the landmines.

Does that suggest feminism gets so much done because women don't have better things to do?

So would you encourage activism or not?

silverharp

Women have things to do, feminists have spare time as they normally don't have families or busy jobs

If you have skin in the game activism can make sense, if its just a hobby meh

El_Duderino 09

silverharp wrote: »

Women have things to do, feminists have spare time as they normally don't have families or busy jobs

If you have skin in the game activism can make sense, if its just a hobby meh

Ah, there are lots of men without busy jobs too. Considering there are lots more single female parents than Male.

I’m still not sure what point you’re making.

Are you saying why you personally wouldn’t be active, or are you trying to explain the reason why feminists are much better at campaign in than men’s rights activists?

As I asked above, would you encourage activism or not?

Also, why do you have to have skin in the game to campaign? Should only gay people want the country to have gay rights, marriage etc?

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

Women have things to do, feminists have spare time as they normally don't have families or busy jobs

If you have skin in the game activism can make sense, if its just a hobby meh

I am no expert on the demographics of feminists but know of one couple where he worked full-time all his life, for a lot of it running his own business. She stopped working outside home when had two kids. Then went on to study women’s studies and was on the national executive/similar of National Women’s Council for a number of years.

Most men would still be expected to work full-time.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah, there are lots of men without busy jobs too. Considering there are lots more single female parents than Male.

I’m still not sure what point you’re making.

Are you saying why you personally wouldn’t be active, or are you trying to explain the reason why feminists are much better at campaign in than men’s rights activists?

As I asked above, would you encourage activism or not?

Also, why do you have to have skin in the game to campaign? Should only gay people want the country to have gay rights, marriage etc?

There aren't whole college departments dedicated to training men's rights activists.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah, there are lots of men without busy jobs too. Considering there are lots more single female parents than Male.

I’m still not sure what point you’re making.

Are you saying why you personally wouldn’t be active, or are you trying to explain the reason why feminists are much better at campaign in than men’s rights activists?

As I asked above, would you encourage activism or not?

Also, why do you have to have skin in the game to campaign? Should only gay people want the country to have gay rights, marriage etc?

There aren't whole college departments dedicated to training men's rights activists.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah, there are lots of men without busy jobs too. Considering there are lots more single female parents than Male.

I’m still not sure what point you’re making.

Are you saying why you personally wouldn’t be active, or are you trying to explain the reason why feminists are much better at campaign in than men’s rights activists?

As I asked above, would you encourage activism or not?

Also, why do you have to have skin in the game to campaign? Should only gay people want the country to have gay rights, marriage etc?

My daughter was in a sports club. The lessons etc were expensive. They started organising classes midweek during the day. She couldn't go anymore. The ones that could go were wives of working men with kids in school that had lots of time and money. And nannies. There is no equivalent male demographic.

silverharp

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah, there are lots of men without busy jobs too. Considering there are lots more single female parents than Male.

I’m still not sure what point you’re making.

Are you saying why you personally wouldn’t be active, or are you trying to explain the reason why feminists are much better at campaign in than men’s rights activists?

As I asked above, would you encourage activism or not?

Also, why do you have to have skin in the game to campaign? Should only gay people want the country to have gay rights, marriage etc?

That would be their male feminist allies then. My problem with feminist activists is that I believe their activism is a substitute for getting on with their lives. Being born with autism is a problem, being born female isn't. Having a scattergun of poorly defined and contradictory goals is going to lead to continual frustration as reality is unlikely to bend in your direction.
There was an amusing interview with portillo and dome male feminist who wanted men to step aside and have a matriarchy. That's less likely than the UK surrendering to Isis. The guy in question should certainly refocus his time unless he has managed to monitise his views somehow.

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

There aren't whole college departments dedicated to training men's rights activists.

Yeah i suppose that must be one of the reasons feminists are so much more successful at campaigning.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah i suppose that must be one of the reasons feminists are so much more successful at campaigning.

I remember around 2011 the Wikipedia page for Masculism/Men’s Rights/something similar was informative with lots of issues highlighted. However it was weakened a lot over the years with lots of edits as it supposedly didn’t have enough academic references. Though it was also suggested Wikipedia could be biased as they didn’t want to be seen as a male-dominated entity.

The imbalance in gender studies means there are a lot more academic papers that can be cited by feminists than those interested in men’s rights. And a lot more people knowledgeable about the published literature.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah i suppose that must be one of the reasons feminists are so much more successful at campaigning.

I remember around 2011 the Wikipedia page for Masculism/Men’s Rights/something similar was informative with lots of issues highlighted. However it was weakened a lot over the years with lots of edits as it supposedly didn’t have enough academic references. Though it was also suggested Wikipedia could be biased as they didn’t want to be seen as a male-dominated entity.

The imbalance in gender studies means there are a lot more academic papers that can be cited by feminists than those interested in men’s rights. And a lot more people knowledgeable about the published literature.

And what’s the solution to that?

Or more importantly, what does the men’s rights movement do to make sure its issues are advanced?