Happy International Men's Day!

Silentcorner

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh absolutely I accept that.

Do you accept that men are entitled on International Men’s Day to speak about issues that matter to them?

Simon Harris is absolutely within his right to address other men with an issue he feels strongly enough about to raise with men on International Men’s Day. That’s the whole bloody point of IMD - for men to raise issues that matter to them.

You completely missed the point if you imagine men are the real victims in anything the Minister said. That just shows your own bias in complaining that a man didn’t talk about what you want him to talk about, he talked about something that matters to him.

Nowhere was there any suggestion made that you can’t talk about issues that matter to you, and that’s why I have no interest in IMD. You say it was an opportunity to highlight male victims of domestic violence - sure I do that myself every fcuking day. I also do the same for women. There’s no conflict whatsoever between the two issues from either perspective, only the conflict that’s in your imagination that you are entirely responsible for with your perceptions and claims that anyone, whether they are a man or a woman, is part of some “gender war” nonsense.

You’re speaking for yourself on that one.

Ok, let me be clear because your style is a little confusing.

I do not beat up women.
I do not get beaten up by a woman.

I don't work for an organisation that has gender equality programs.
I don't have kids.

You are talking about bias like you are not affected by it...you clearly are!

I think it is inappropriate that our Minster for Health chose to ignore male victims of domestic abuse on IMD....a topic that I do not recall ever seen mentioned in media, victims that can often feel isolated because of the lack of support of any kind, it would have been the perfect occasion ....I don't think that is right.

One eyed Jack

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ok, let me be clear because your style is a little confusing.

I do not beat up women.
I do not get beaten up by a woman.

I don't work for an organisation that has gender equality programs.
I don't have kids.

Nobody accused you of beating up women.

I was regularly beaten by a woman.

I don’t work for an organisation that has gender equality programs.

I do have a child.

I feel like there’s something I’m missing here?

You are talking about bias like you are not affected by it...you clearly are!

I think it is inappropriate that our Minster for Health chose to ignore male victims of domestic abuse on IMD....a topic that I do not recall ever seen mentioned in media, victims that can often feel isolated because of the lack of support of any kind, it would have been the perfect occasion ....I don't think that is right.

Oh I have my biases alright, and I’m well aware of them too, and I’m also aware of how they undoubtedly influence my opinions and actions.

You’ve also switched from explicitly pointing out that the male Minister for Health made the point, my bias didn’t prevent me from noticing that. Suddenly it’s irrelevant that the Minister is male now? He also didn’t ignore anyone, he just didn’t mention them, because he was talking about an issue facing men from his perspective, nothing inappropriate or biased about what he said, from my perspective, as a man, who just doesn’t share your perspective.

A topic you don’t recall ever seeing mentioned in the media? That’s definitely your own bias, because I know my bias means I’m more attuned to it being mentioned, and trust me - it gets mentioned plenty. Your bias would also explain your claim that there is a lack of support of any kind, which from my perspective is again completely untrue. There’s so much support for male victims of domestic violence that it can be overwhelming at times and I have to try and switch off from it all because I could do without the constant reminders.

El_Duderino 09

Feisar wrote: »

To what end though?

I'm Male so:

I know to get my prostate checked as I get older for cancer
Suicide/depression is a big killer, I'll watch that, in my profession it's 3 times the average

It's great that you know those things but lots of people don't know about the issues which affect men. For example me are less likely to get medical help for serious issues like mental health. So it's not just about making sure you personally know about the risks. It's also about role modelling how to get help and how other men have overcome similar issues.

Feisar wrote: »

Domestic violence isn't recognised, if the wife goes down that road I'll give her road.
Family courts don't give men a fair hearing; I'll go on the doll. Can't get blood from a stone.

The whole point us to highlight these kinds of things. Domestic violence against men is a serious problem but lots of people don't know about it because it's brushed under the carpet. So they are reduced to using their uninformed imagination. Lots of people think a man is usually physically stronger than a woman so he can easily defend himself. But the reality is that domestic violence is always accompanied by psychological abuse and manipulation. People understand the complicated nature of domestic abuse when they actually discuss it. But you can't expect people to simply know about it intuitively.

The other point is to create an environment where politicians can spend political capital advocating and lobbying for men's services. They need to know the public will support them and vote for them if they back a policy that addresses mens issues.

Women's Day is a prime example of how these things can be used to highlight issues and get them to the front of public consciousness. 'I'm grand so pull the ladder up, Jack' will ensure that mens issues stay small in the public consciousness.

El_Duderino 09

YFlyer wrote: »

All those points are well known.

Are they? The people I spoke witb yesterday didn't know suicide was the main killer of young men. They were glad to find out.

I find it frustrating that men will simultaneously complain that women's issues are at the front and women's issues are being addressed. But then complain that there's little point to IMD.

If you want things to change you have to keep discussing them and make sure people not only know about them, but see them as important.

Maxpfizer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is it, unfortunately. All the issues that would benefit from using IMD to raise awareness from mental health to domestic and sexual violence against men and treatment of men in family courts. Men who don't give tuppence about IMD will get all hot and bothered on Women's Day, faking outrage at how useful and well publicised it is and asking why nothing happens on IMD.

I brought IMD up in conversation a couple of times yesterday and the initial reaction was 'every day's men's day'. But then I mentioned suicide being the single biggest cause of death of young men, men falling behind in education and the assumption that women are the primary carer and given preferential treatment in family courts, in a world where both parents increasingly share parenting duties.

The people I spoke with were glad of the information. You can't expect other people to know the same things you know unless you actually share information.

One thing I know is that IMD will never become more useful as long as some clowns can only raise a 'meh' on IMD but feign outrage when Women's say is actually really useful to highlight women's issues.

So I am one of those who doesn't really give a crap about IMD. I wouldn't say I'm outraged that there is an IWD but I am a bit perplexed by the large amount of coverage it gets. compared to IMD.

Personally, I don't think either day is particularly useful and they tend to really reinforce the "division" we see between the genders.

Suicide affects everyone. Sure the vast majority of those dying via suicide are men but there are follow-on effects such as the impact on those left behind. Plus there are still a lot of women committing suicide too.

A big problem I have with both IMD and IWD is that it takes an issue that affects everyone and then divides it up into "how it affects Men" and "how it affects Women".

Then the activist groups and the lobbying groups step in and the women's groups try to get money and support for female suicide issues and the male groups try to get money and support for male suicide issues.

There is only a finite amount of money or support available though.

Domestic violence is one where it's clear that funding and support for female victims far outstrips the funding and support for male victims. This doesn't appear to be reflected in victim statistics and, again, there are knock on effects that have an impact on both males and females (such as children in families where the parents are abusing each other).

I feel like IMD and IWD almost validate this difference in our minds. We are saying "ok, men, you go over there are work on mens issues" and "ok, women, you go over there and work on womens issues" and that's it.

Really it ought to be a case of coming together and solving issues that actually affect everyone on some level.

For example, why should there be any kind of "gender split" in funding for cancer research? Surely more funding should go to either the more common cancers or the cancers that have the best chance of being treated/cured/whatever?

What we effectively have is dealing with "Men's Cancer" and then dealing with "Women's Cancer" and both groups are competing with each other for funding.

I don't care about Men's Day because none of the issues brought up are specific to Men. They are societal problems that we ought to be sitting down and working on together throughout the year. Not just saying "well you have your own special day for this" and leaving it at that.

They same goes for Women's Day. Most of the issues are societal but it's treated like because the issues affect women specifically they need extra special care and attention.

Then you've got the non-binary question on the horizon.

Women's Day excludes basically anyone who doesn't identify as a woman. That can be quite alienating, wouldn't you say? We're concerned about women's pay and women's suicide and women's illnesses but what about those who don't identify that way?

Oh, they've got Men's Day? Not necessarily. What if I identify as neither? Where's my day?

That's why I think both IMD and IWD are "meh". It just seems like a big opportunity for people to market themselves and pretend like they care about fixing problems. In reality I think they are just sowing division.

If you're talking about violence but you're only talking about violence against women then you're only interested in solving part of the problem.

If you're talking about suicide but you're only talking about male victims then you are only interested in solving part of the problem.

Who solves the other part of the problem? "Ah, sure, you've got your own day for that!"

Identity politics is BS.

El_Duderino 09

Maxpfizer wrote: »

So I am one of those who doesn't really give a crap about IMD. I wouldn't say I'm outraged that there is an IWD but I am a bit perplexed by the large amount of coverage it gets. compared to IMD.

Personally, I don't think either day is particularly useful and they tend to really reinforce the "division" we see between the genders.
...
That's why I think both IMD and IWD are "meh". It just seems like a big opportunity for people to market themselves and pretend like they care about fixing problems. In reality I think they are just sowing division.

If you're talking about violence but you're only talking about violence against women then you're only interested in solving part of the problem.

If you're talking about suicide but you're only talking about male victims then you are only interested in solving part of the problem.

Who solves the other part of the problem? "Ah, sure, you've got your own day for that!"

Identity politics is BS.

There's absolutely no need to be perplexed at women's day being so much bigger than mens day. Women's day is well publicised and well used both by women's advocacy groups AND women and the general public.

Women's issues weren't always taken so seriously. A lot of hard work happened between then and now.

As for completion for resources, there is always competition for resources. Anyone who says they know how to spend all the cancer research money is probably wrong. In reality we divide big problems into smaller problems and get groups up bid got money to solve those smaller problems. That's the whole point of lobbying.

If our society was perfectly run and had infinite resources, then there wouldn't be a need for lobbying be as use the resources would already be used in the best way possible.

Bottom line is that women's issues have the upper hand at the moment because women's issues advocates are more successful at the moment. I can't hold that against them. I just wish men wereore supporting of mens issues and advocates.

Maxpfizer

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's absolutely no need to be perplexed at women's day being so much bigger than mens day. Women's day is well publicised and well used both by women's advocacy groups AND women and the general public.

Should it be that way though?

I'm not a fan of Men's day for the same reasons I'm not a fan of Women's day.

They are both exclusionary by definition.

Yet, the issues they claim to be dealing with are not exclusionary at all.

Shenshen

Maxpfizer wrote: »

Should it be that way though?

I'm not a fan of Men's day for the same reasons I'm not a fan of Women's day.

They are both exclusionary by definition.

Yet, the issues they claim to be dealing with are not exclusionary at all.

I would agree, nearly all the issues we label as men's issues or women's issues do in fact affect both genders. In that sense, splitting them by labeling them may seem counter-productive.

However, until certain issues were labeled women's issues, they did not get addressed by society at all. In the past, it was only when the effects of any one of these issues on ONE gender (women, usually) were highlighted by interest groups that they started to enter the public consciousness. That's when debate and political change started happening.

So while it is important that a certain balance is maintained to keep animosities in check if nothing else, maybe sticking the label "men's issue" on things like mental health, children's rights to have equal access to both parents, etc will actually bring them to the debate and might facilitate change.

El_Duderino 09

Maxpfizer wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's absolutely no need to be perplexed at women's day being so much bigger than mens day. Women's day is well publicised and well used both by women's advocacy groups AND women and the general public.

Should it be that way though?

It depends on what you mean. Should an event that's well organised and well publicised and well supported be bigger than an event that's not well supported, even by it target market? It doesn't really matter whether it should be that way because it is that way.

coffee_cake

My workplace did have imd talks which i thought was good

Mrsmum

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ok, let me be clear because your style is a little confusing.

I do not beat up women.
I do not get beaten up by a woman.

I don't work for an organisation that has gender equality programs.
I don't have kids.

You are talking about bias like you are not affected by it...you clearly are!

I think it is inappropriate that our Minster for Health chose to ignore male victims of domestic abuse on IMD....a topic that I do not recall ever seen mentioned in media, victims that can often feel isolated because of the lack of support of any kind, it would have been the perfect occasion ....I don't think that is right.

There is a advertising campaign on TV currently running asking people "What would you do" (if you witnessed domestic abuse) and one of the scenarios is of a man victim. How is that not mentioning it ???

Also I think you would have to be living under a rock not to be aware of the worrying problem of suicide & young men.

We also have health campaigns like Movember and Mind our Men.

As far as I know they are currently talking about splitting maternity leave between parents which is an acknowledgement of the important role of fathers.

Yes there are women only networking events nowadays but to be fair men have had golf outings since time began which was networking by another name. In my husbands work they have a golf outing every year on a work day.

Really I don't see any need to panic. Women have been at the forefront of calling for and bringing in changes but these changes are good for everyone because as I keep saying we are all connected.

backspin.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's absolutely no need to be perplexed at women's day being so much bigger than mens day. Women's day is well publicised and well used both by women's advocacy groups AND women and the general public. s.

I wonder how welcome you'd be trying to set up a men's advocacy group in a university or a business or even in society at large. I'd imagine the reaction would range from ridicule to outright hostility and accusations of misogyny.

El_Duderino 09

backspin. wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

There's absolutely no need to be perplexed at women's day being so much bigger than mens day. Women's day is well publicised and well used both by women's advocacy groups AND women and the general public. s.

I wonder how welcome you'd be trying to set up a men's advocacy group in a university or a business or even in society at large. I'd imagine the reaction would range from ridicule to outright hostility and accusations of misogyny.

So? Do you think organisations and advocacy groups are always easy to establish?

Mrsmum

backspin. wrote: »

I wonder how welcome you'd be trying to set up a men's advocacy group in a university or a business or even in society at large. I'd imagine the reaction would range from ridicule to outright hostility and accusations of misogyny.

How about 'Men's Sheds'. I see everyone praising that initiative and no one laughing at it.

silverharp

Mrsmum wrote: »

How about 'Men's Sheds'. I see everyone praising that initiative and no one laughing at it.

doffs cap, thanks maam for letting us have that one, thankee! thankee! , he still has a point though, try set up a men's group in an Irish university and most likely they will be told that's covered by the feminist society.

rafatoni

bluewolf wrote: »

My workplace did have imd talks which i thought was good

Fair play..

Wasnt even mentioned in ours. However, our company does give single flowers to all female on IWD.

Gimme A Pound

silverharp wrote: »

doffs cap, thanks maam for letting us have that one, thankee! thankee!

Not sure how necessary that is.

he still has a point though, try set up a men's group in an Irish university and most likely they will be told that's covered by the feminist society.

Yeah I agree - still think men should try and set up men's support and advocacy groups though.

Triceratops Ballet

Bjorn Scarce Sorrow wrote: »

Not sure how necessary that is.

Yeah I agree - still think men should try and set up men's support and advocacy groups though.

They absolutely should, I imagine there was a fair amount of ridicule when the first womens socs were set up in universities, the first people to do anything typically find it harder and may find they face more adversity in doing it, does that mean they shouldn't try?

iptba

silverharp wrote: »

doffs cap, thanks maam for letting us have that one, thankee! thankee! , he still has a point though, try set up a men's group in an Irish university and most likely they will be told that's covered by the feminist society.

Yes I recall somebody a Maynooth being told that.
There was another message, I'm not sure if it was from the same person or not,
who asked could an event on father's rights be highlighted by the Feminist society/group and they said no, they that wasn't part of the remit

Here's an article from the UK:

Why are our universities blocking men's societies?

As another society for male students to address important issues is blocked, Martin Daubney asks why universities aren't taking male concerns seriously
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11670138/Why-are-our-universities-blocking-mens-societies.html

hatrickpatrick

When lads complain that society cares more about women, IMO it's crap like this which perfectly exemplifies that:



If we could somehow get the media to stop talking like this, I actually think it would go a long way towards tempering the vitriol on both sides. It's utterly inflammatory to suggest that one gender matters more than the other and cuts to the very heart of why so many people are angry.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Plopsu wrote: »

Any thoughts on why men's disinterest in primary teaching has skyrocketed in the past thirty or forty years? There was no shortage when I was in school.

Really? I went to primary school in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Only one permanent teacher in our school was a man and I never recall us having anything other than female substitute teachers either.

Triceratops Ballet

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Really? I went to primary school in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Only one permanent teacher in our school was a man and I never recall us having anything other than female substitute teachers either.

Yeah if you're thinking of a time when men dominated teaching you're probably thinking back beyond the 70's when the marriage bar would have been in effect. Women simply had no choice to teach once they were married so there had to be plenty of male teachers.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yeah if you're thinking of a time when men dominated teaching you're probably thinking back beyond the 70's when the marriage bar would have been in effect. Women simply had no choice to teach once they were married so there had to be plenty of male teachers.

Did a lot of them come back when the bar was lifted?

We had two woeful wagons from the 1950s in our primary back in the 1990s. They were mean, scary looking women who ran their classrooms of 8yr olds like how a corporal runs a platoon of army recruits.

I remember as a young boy being amazed that they had husbands.

Triceratops Ballet

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote:

Did a lot of them come back when the bar was lifted?

I know other parts of the public sector actively targeted these women in recruitment drives in later years so I imagine they did similar with teachers after the baby boom in the 80's created a bigger demand for teachers

suicide_circus

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When lads complain that society cares more about women, IMO it's crap like this which perfectly exemplifies that:

Jesus that's priceless

Gimme A Pound

suicide_circus wrote: »

Jesus that's priceless

Yeah I can understand men's anger over utter shyte like that. Its proponents have husbands, partners, sons, brothers. Some of its proponents actually are men.

Plopsu

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Really?

Yes, really. Wasn't anything unusual either.

Plopsu

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yeah if you're thinking of a time when men dominated teaching you're probably thinking back beyond the 70's when the marriage bar would have been in effect. Women simply had no choice to teach once they were married so there had to be plenty of male teachers.

Well, it was during the seventies, so that may have been a factor. But there was enough interest amongst men to supply my school with plenty of male teachers.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Plopsu wrote: »

Yes, really. Wasn't anything unusual either.

Well, where I was, it was, looking at the various primary schools in my area. They were all female-heavy in their teaching staff in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Has there ever been a time in the history of the state where gender levels in primary teaching were anywhere near 50/50? And it’s lost a lot of status as a profession in the last few decades and isn’t really a job you’re going to get rich off. These things need to be taken into consideration when examining why fewer men are entering teaching. I think men should be encouraged to enter the profession if it’s something they are considering and think they’d like to do. I just have a hunch that it’s a profession that appeals much more to women than men generally.

Plopsu

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I just have a hunch that it’s a profession that appeals much more to women than men generally.

Ah, that'll be much like my hunch that STEM fields just appeal more to men than to women. :pac: