International Men's Day 19th November

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

Because I know a lot of people who do this

So you're only referring to the people you actually know? And you're not pretending to know about the entire rest of the people who advocate for men's issues and promote IMD as a means of doing so?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you're only referring to the people you actually know? And you're not pretending to know about the entire rest of the people who advocate for men's issues and promote IMD as a means of doing so?

I think this is what posters are talking about you misrepresenting them.

It was obvious that neither ironicname nor one eyed jack are in no way speaking about the entirety of people who promote IMD.

There is a large swathe of people who jump on the bandwagon and hijack serious matters for their own gain and these are the people that are being talked about here.

It is perfectly reasonable that people who work tirelessly throughout the year would distance themselves from the day where men's issues are pretty much trivialised for the sake of likes and point scoring.

If people want to focus on positives and promote positive aspects of masculinity and why men should be proud, then that's great. I, and others on here, feel that highlighting what is perceived as negatives and pretending you care does more damage than good.

Sure, raising awareness can be a good thing, but I know first hand of people who are going through issues that feel worse when they see their issues being used in such a distasteful manner for one day.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this is what posters are talking about you misrepresenting them.

It was obvious that neither ironicname or one eyed jack are in no way speaking for the entirety of people who promote IMD.

There is a large swathe of people who jump on the bandwagon and hijack serious matters for their own gain and these are the people that are being talked about here.

It is perfectly reasonable that people who work tirelessly throughout the year would distance themselves from the day where men's issues are pretty much trivialised for the sake of likes and point scoring.

If people want to focus on positives and promote positive aspects of masculinity and why men should be proud, then that's great. I, and others on here, feel that highlighting what is perceived as negatives and pretending you care does more damage than good.

Sure, raising awareness can be a good thing, but I know first hand of people who are going through issues that feel worse when they see their issues being used in such a distasteful manner for one day.

They write off the concept of IMD because they know some people who do things on IMD and don't do things for the rest of the year? That's a stupid reason to write off the entire day and what it stands to achieve. This is the purity test I referred to earlier. I don't mind if people get something out of promoting men's issues.

It's not at all reasonable to presume people who work tirelessly throughout the year would distance themselves from the day (we're back to pretending to know the motivations of people we don't know). You're making out that the people who take part in IMD are not the people who work tirelessly to promote men's issues and you have absolutely no basis to make that claim except your own prejudice which is based on pretending to know others' motivations.

IF you believed that was true, you would be suggesting the mental health charities and men's cancer groups, father's rights and suicide prevention groups, don't care about men's issues throughout the rest of the year. And that would be a silly thing to say, wouldn't it?

Reviews and Books Galore

Imo, there is a lot of truth to this theory that men's issue can be shown as long as they show men's 'vulnerability'. You can see the same in regards to YA novels. Really, search google YA men/boy vulnerable and see all the weird articles that come up.



Here's a lovely one. Imo, I skimmed it, and I had to drink a cup of chamomile tea.



https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/how-boys-can-grow-into-real-men-male-authors-fight-toxic-masculinity


And, yes, I do find it creepy that middle aged women* are telling underage boys to be vulnerable.



*The authors above are men.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Imo, there is a lot of truth to this theory that men's issue can be shown as long as they show men's 'vulnerability'. You can see the same in regards to YA novels. Really, search google YA men/boy vulnerable and see all the weird articles that come up.



Here's a lovely one. Imo, I skimmed it, and I had to drink a cup of chamomile tea.



https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/how-boys-can-grow-into-real-men-male-authors-fight-toxic-masculinity


And, yes, I do find it creepy that middle aged women* are telling underage boys to be vulnerable.



*The authors above are men.

Sure and it might lead to an interesting discussion. Do you want to pop that in a thread about something else? Because this thread is about promoting IMD and that article has absolutely nothing to do with IMD

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They write off the concept of IMD because they know some people who do things on IMD and don't do things for the rest of the year? That's a stupid reason to write off the entire day and what it stands to achieve. This is the purity test I referred to earlier. I don't mind if people get something out of promoting men's issues.

And once again you are ascribing incorrect assumptions to what I posted.

You don't mind people piggybacking using men's issues but I do. That is fine. But for some reason, you want to attack those that don't agree with you .

They are within their rights to write off IMD without being called stupid or being labelled as "part of a problem". It's almost as if you are trying to score points yourself.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's not at all reasonable to presume people who work tirelessly throughout the year would distance themselves from the day (we're back to pretending to know the motivations of people we don't know). You're making out that the people who take part in IMD are not the people who work tirelessly to promote men's issues and you have absolutely no basis to make that claim except your own prejudice which is based on pretending to know others' motivations.

It is absolutely reasonable to say that people who work tirelessly would distance themselves from the day. Nobody said ALL people who partake in IMD are bandwagon jumpers and I never made it out that anyone who does contribute to IMD is in that group.

You continually tell me that I am prejudiced based on assumptions I am making. That is simply not true. I am prejudiced because of knowing people who are negatively affected by the actions of a large group of people who trivialise serious issues on a specific day.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

IF you believed that was true, you would be suggesting the mental health charities and men's cancer groups, father's rights and suicide prevention groups, don't care about men's issues throughout the rest of the year. And that would be a silly thing to say, wouldn't it?

What a ridiculous statement to make. You really are showing yourself up here. Some people don't agree with you regarding IMD and you throw ridiculous accusations and misrepresent their words.

Why can't you accept that people have different opinions?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

And once again you are ascribing incorrect assumptions to what I posted.

You don't mind people piggybacking using men's issues but I do. That is fine. But for some reason, you want to attack those that don't agree with you .

They are within their rights to write off IMD without being called stupid or being labelled as "part of a problem". It's almost as if you are trying to score points yourself.



It is absolutely reasonable to say that people who work tirelessly would distance themselves from the day. Nobody said ALL people who partake in IMD are bandwagon jumpers and I never made it out that anyone who does contribute to IMD is in that group.

You continually tell me that I am prejudiced based on assumptions I am making. That is simply not true. I am prejudiced because of knowing people who are negatively affected by the actions of a large group of people who trivialise serious issues on a specific day.




What a ridiculous statement to make. You really are showing yourself up here. Some people don't agree with you regarding IMD and you throw ridiculous accusations and misrepresent their words.

Why can't you accept that people have different opinions?

The people who care about men's rights would be capitalising on IMD. Obviously. Only the few people who apply this purity test you seem to ascribe to, would avoid it or try to diminish IMD.

You still haven't said why you apply your purity test to men's issues. If someone promotes the Irish heart foundation occasionally (a couple of times a year) but basically spends the rest of the year getting on with their life, going to work etc. Do they fail your purity test and would you hold equally negative sentiment towards the Irish heart foundation or any event which that person show up to support?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The people who care about men's rights would be capitalising on IMD. Obviously. Only the few people who apply this purity test you seem to ascribe to, would avoid it or try to diminish IMD.

Diminish IMD? Nobody is calling for the abolition of it.

Some posters, including myself, feel that it does focus a lot of attention to the negative aspects of masculinity and as I have said on numerous occasions I know a lot of people who are negatively affected by the faux attention it is given.

Purely anecdotal but nonetheless real to me.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You still haven't said why you apply your purity test to men's issues. If someone promotes the Irish heart foundation occasionally (a couple of times a year) but basically spends the rest of the year getting on with their life, going to work etc. Do they fail your purity test and would you hold equally negative sentiment towards the Irish heart foundation or any event which that person show up to support?

Apples and oranges.

You know this.

Anyway, I think our conversation has run its course. Enjoy your IMD.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Diminish IMD? Nobody is calling for the abolition of it.

Some posters, including myself, feel that it does focus a lot of attention to the negative aspects of masculinity and as I have said on numerous occasions I know a lot of people who are negatively affected by the faux attention it is given.

Purely anecdotal but nonetheless real to me.



Apples and oranges.

You know this.

Anyway, I think our conversation has run its course. Enjoy your IMD.

Not at all apples and oranges and I suspect the fact that you don't hold this attitude towards other organisations or apply a purity test towards the people who support or promote them, is the reason you don't want to engage further. Don't you know people with heart conditions who are negatively affected by the faux attention heart charity events are given?

The purity test is nonsense and I've no idea why you'd apply it to IMD and not to everything else. Not apples and oranges and if it were, you'd be able to articulate why.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not at all apples and oranges and I suspect the fact that you don't hold this attitude towards other organisations or apply a purity test towards the people who support or promote them, is the reason you don't want to engage further. Don't you know people with heart conditions who are negatively affected by the faux attention heart charity events are given?

The purity test is nonsense and I've no idea why you'd apply it to IMD and not to everything else. Not apples and oranges and if it were, you'd be able to articulate why.

Again, you manage to wildly miss the point.

Comparing a day where a large swathe of people pretend to care about men's issues such as suicidal tendancies and depression can be extremely negative towards men who have these issues. Like it or not, there are a lot of people like that.

IMD: "Hey, it's good to talk and be open" "We are here for you"
364 days: "Deadbeat dads", "Check your privilege" "you don't know anything about discrimination"

The people they see pretending to care and then completely have no interest and actively propagate ideas that cause men's issues a day later is completely different to someone talking about cancer once or twice a year.

I'm sick of your condescending tone, on this thread and others, and find it extremely hypocritical of you to lecture and lambaste people for not supporting International men's day when in every thread you post in you openly do your best to belittle people who have the audacity to have a different opinion.

I won't be engaging with you any further.

Church on Tuesday

Lads, let's put the pointless bickering aside, band together and do whatever we feel most comfortable with, IMD or no, in trying to raise awareness or do our bit for Men's health and well being.

Church on Tuesday

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Lads, let's put the pointless bickering aside, band together and do whatever we feel most comfortable with, IMD or no, in trying to raise awareness or do our bit for Men's health and well being.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Reviews and Books Galore

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Imo, there is a lot of truth to this theory that men's issue can be shown as long as they show men's 'vulnerability'. You can see the same in regards to YA novels. Really, search google YA men/boy vulnerable and see all the weird articles that come up.



Here's a lovely one. Imo, I skimmed it, and I had to drink a cup of chamomile tea.



https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/how-boys-can-grow-into-real-men-male-authors-fight-toxic-masculinity


And, yes, I do find it creepy that middle aged women* are telling underage boys to be vulnerable.



*The authors above are men.

Here's another interesting article.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/happened-primary-school-went-gender-neutral/

Signs reading “girls are strong” and “boys are sensitive” are hung on classroom walls

The sad thing is, from my research into this whole gender neutral classroom, is that it is not gender neutral. The teachers are often very aware that the boys are boys and the girls are girls, but in a very toxic way.

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure and it might lead to an interesting discussion. Do you want to pop that in a thread about something else? Because this thread is about promoting IMD and that article has absolutely nothing to do with IMD

You have no right to define what IMD is not about.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. So if you don't think media attention for men's issues is a good idea, how do yo think they should be addressed and solved?

I really don't get your objection to using the media to promote men's issuers. Who's the victim, the media? Or the charities and organisations who exist to help men? Or the men who are benefitted by the organisations and information? You're applying some kind of purity test to people who want to help where if they get any benefit from it, then you dismiss them and all the work they want to do.

There's a funny line in Peep Show which you reminded me of. The lads are talking to a music manager about signing them Super Hans says "A lot of these b**tards just want to give you an advance, promote your stuff, then make a profit for them and you".

Assuming that the people involved in promoting men's issues are a normal spread of people so some will be deeply decent and some will be deeply unpleasant people, so what? Does them being unpleasant invalidate the good work they of everyone? Do you apply this standard to every organisation and charity who tries to help with an issue or do you just apply the standard to men's issues?

It seems to me that you will say you support addressing men's issues in principle, but couldn't support any effort that uses publicity or has anyone who gets anything from it like profit, or a sense of satisfaction from doing something they believe to be a benefit to others or benefiting from something completely free to the organisation like enhancing their public profile.

Almost every bit of work in the world is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Why should men's issues be any different? How do you expect much work to be done if there is absolutely no pay off for the people doing it? If someone does good work and it raises their profile so they can do other things, so what? It makes it a mutually beneficial arrangement. Why this purity test for men's issues?

I never made any comment about the media, your question was about using IMD to talk about men’s issues, and I disagreed with you on that point.

Now I’m specifically addressing your question about whether or not I apply a purity test to organisations and people who claim to be offering help while serving their own interests. The answer is yes, I do apply that test to everything. That’s why I am critical of anyone who latches on to social issues for their own personal and/or financial gain.

That’s exactly why I am critical of IMD - because I see it as a day where the people who are most vocal in promoting it are doing so for their own personal and financial gain. Their attitudes and their methodology is very similar to your own in that they try to paint anyone who is critical of their efforts to promote themselves as someone who doesn’t care like they do about the issues they’re attempting to raise people’s consciousness of. That’s why I said it sounded familiar - because organisations and individuals throughout human history have used the same divide and conquer strategy in furtherance of their own personal or financial gain.

You ask me how do I expect much work to be done if there is no payoff for the people doing it, which suggests that you aren’t aware of the many, many people who work helping people and don’t want the limelight or the attention on themselves. As far as they’re concerned they just want to see people doing well for themselves. They don’t bother with the gender politics and all the rest of that divisive nonsense, they just do what they do. The thing is - most people in society are like that. They don’t do what they do for themselves, they do it because they are aware of other people and help out where they can.

Then there are the few people in society who don’t do anything for anyone unless there’s something in it for themselves, like personal or financial gain, and it’s those types of people who are always behind initiatives like IMD and promote them as these fantastic initiatives and all the rest of it. In reality all they’re doing is as you suggest - increasing their own public profile for personal or financial gain through activities such as public speaking and fundraising. They’re generating public awareness of themselves, for their own personal and financial gain, and latching on to issues they’re aware that people experience and care about already, and if anyone is critical of their methods - that person should be ashamed of themselves. Pretty much like you tried to do earlier on in the thread, and frankly if I gave a shiny shìte for your passing judgement upon me, your attempt might have worked. It’s that same sort of technique that cults use to recruit members. I commented earlier as an example that Tom Cruise would say Scientology are doing great work, and by your standards of mutual benefit and so on - their success in promoting themselves has been phenomenal, but that help has come at a price for far more people who’s lives have been torn apart by their involvement with Scientology.

It’s the same reason I admitted earlier in the thread that I’d worked in social care for a number of years and it was doing my own mental health no favours - because when you’re trying to protect people from exploitation and people who seek to profit from perpetuating misery, it’s that much harder to do when you’re also fighting against organisations which claim to want to help people, doing the very same thing! I do still work with people, I work with people who have been turned away from organisations as they don’t fit that organisations profile, and I’ve been asked why wouldn’t I set up a charity and all the rest of it. I don’t need to set up a charity because I don’t need money or funding from anyone to do what I do. I don’t need praise and recognition for what I do, but some people do, and those are the sort of people who get behind initiatives like IMD, IWD, etc - they do it because they want the public recognition and public funding, not because they care about the people they claim to represent or serve, but purely for their own personal and financial gain.

I have no wish to be involved in promoting anything or anyone whom I see as ultimately attempting to exploit people for their own personal or financial gain, and that’s why not only do I not wish to promote ideas like IMD, but I’m as critical as I am of the idea. I don’t see it as helping anyone, and to suggest that makes me part of the problem in addressing the issues you purport to care about addressing is no different than a cult which attempts to turn people against the people who care about them for that persons or organisations own personal and/or financial gain.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, you manage to wildly miss the point.

Comparing a day where a large swathe of people pretend to care about men's issues such as suicidal tendancies and depression can be extremely negative towards men who have these issues. Like it or not, there are a lot of people like that.

IMD: "Hey, it's good to talk and be open" "We are here for you"
364 days: "Deadbeat dads", "Check your privilege" "you don't know anything about discrimination"

The people they see pretending to care and then completely have no interest and actively propagate ideas that cause men's issues a day later is completely different to someone talking about cancer once or twice a year.

You have no idea what most people who support IMD do the rest of the year round. You say know some people who are anti men's issues year-round and support IMD. They sound like very unusual people to hold such drastically different opinions of different days. I don't entirely trust your characterisations tbh.

But the fact that's you oppose such an obviously good cause as IMD means you're very much a part of the problem which faces people who want to get the info to the wider public. So boo-hoo if you're not going to engage with the matter any further.

Ironicname

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

But the fact that's you oppose such an obviously good cause as IMD means you're very much a part of the problem which faces people who want to get the info to the wider public. So boo-hoo if you're not going to engage with the matter any further.

Do you bully people in real life too?

The Dunne explained that his real life experiences has soured him on IMD and he has stated that he very much supports men's issues. he should be allowed the courtesy of being able to air his opinion without being told he is part of any problem.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never made any comment about the media, your question was about using IMD to talk about men’s issues, and I disagreed with you on that point.

Now I’m specifically addressing your question about whether or not I apply a purity test to organisations and people who claim to be offering help while serving their own interests. The answer is yes, I do apply that test to everything. That’s why I am critical of anyone who latches on to social issues for their own personal and/or financial gain.

That’s exactly why I am critical of IMD - because I see it as a day where the people who are most vocal in promoting it are doing so for their own personal and financial gain. Their attitudes and their methodology is very similar to your own in that they try to paint anyone who is critical of their efforts to promote themselves as someone who doesn’t care like they do about the issues they’re attempting to raise people’s consciousness of. That’s why I said it sounded familiar - because organisations and individuals throughout human history have used the same divide and conquer strategy in furtherance of their own personal or financial gain.

You ask me how do I expect much work to be done if there is no payoff for the people doing it, which suggests that you aren’t aware of the many, many people who work helping people and don’t want the limelight or the attention on themselves. As far as they’re concerned they just want to see people doing well for themselves. They don’t bother with the gender politics and all the rest of that divisive nonsense, they just do what they do. The thing is - most people in society are like that. They don’t do what they do for themselves, they do it because they are aware of other people and help out where they can.

Then there are the few people in society who don’t do anything for anyone unless there’s something in it for themselves, like personal or financial gain, and it’s those types of people who are always behind initiatives like IMD and promote them as these fantastic initiatives and all the rest of it. In reality all they’re doing is as you suggest - increasing their own public profile for personal or financial gain through activities such as public speaking and fundraising. They’re generating public awareness of themselves, for their own personal and financial gain, and latching on to issues they’re aware that people experience and care about already, and if anyone is critical of their methods - that person should be ashamed of themselves. Pretty much like you tried to do earlier on in the thread, and frankly if I gave a shiny shìte for your passing judgement upon me, your attempt might have worked. It’s that same sort of technique that cults use to recruit members. I commented earlier as an example that Tom Cruise would say Scientology are doing great work, and by your standards of mutual benefit and so on - their success in promoting themselves has been phenomenal, but that help has come at a price for far more people who’s lives have been torn apart by their involvement with Scientology.

It’s the same reason I admitted earlier in the thread that I’d worked in social care for a number of years and it was doing my own mental health no favours - because when you’re trying to protect people from exploitation and people who seek to profit from perpetuating misery, it’s that much harder to do when you’re also fighting against organisations which claim to want to help people, doing the very same thing! I do still work with people, I work with people who have been turned away from organisations as they don’t fit that organisations profile, and I’ve been asked why wouldn’t I set up a charity and all the rest of it. I don’t need to set up a charity because I don’t need money or funding from anyone to do what I do. I don’t need praise and recognition for what I do, but some people do, and those are the sort of people who get behind initiatives like IMD, IWD, etc - they do it because they want the public recognition and public funding, not because they care about the people they claim to represent or serve, but purely for their own personal and financial gain.

I have no wish to be involved in promoting anything or anyone whom I see as ultimately attempting to exploit people for their own personal or financial gain, and that’s why not only do I not wish to promote ideas like IMD, but I’m as critical as I am of the idea. I don’t see it as helping anyone, and to suggest that makes me part of the problem in addressing the issues you purport to care about addressing is no different than a cult which attempts to turn people against the people who care about them for that persons or organisations own personal and/or financial gain.

Ok. So you say you oppose anyone who does things for financial or other gain. But that's absolutely ridiculous and counter productive. And i's not true either. I really doubt you apply this standard across the board or else you'd hold equal contempt for people who do any work for financial or other gain.

It's such a silly purity test. You might enjoy sitting about, passing judgement on anyone who actually does anything without it being completely silent. But I'm just happy there are organisations who work to publicise the info needed to identify and address men's issues.

So while you say you're supportive of men's issues, It's an odd way to support them by standing in the way of actually doing any thing about them, denigrating those who actually do things about men's issues, and oppose a great initiative like IMD as an opportunity to get public attention for the issues and solutions.

Is there even such thing as an entirely altruistic act? If someone gets something as little as a sense of wellbeing from doing something good, then I imagine they would fall foul of your purity test. The fact is that people usually do things as a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If you care about men's issues then you'd support things that would help address them. And getting public support for identifying problems and solutions involved highlighting those problems and solutions. That's just how the world works.

El_Duderino 09

7 ways you can celebrate International Men’s Day according to Twitter users

I particularly like the last one. Telling someone who you admire or someone who inspires you, that they have had an impact in your life.

"Overall, International Men’s Day is a time to celebrate the positive influence men can and do have on society as a whole, so why not let the men who inspire you know how much you appreciate them?"

rob316

Robert_Beach wrote: »

Movember was discontinued in our workplace last year after operating for numerous previous years. I thought it cringey but meh, always threw them a few quid.

But apparently it excluded people who, well can't grow a tash. So it's gone. We have a cake sale for a cancer charity for all now.

I don't think any International Mens Day stuff would fly.

That's almost as stupid as the Oxford student on Good Morning the other day petitioning for clapping to be banned and replaced with Jazz hands to help people who suffer from anxiety and sensory issues. :rolleyes:

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. So you say you oppose anyone who does things for financial or other gain. But that's absolutely ridiculous and counter productive. And i's not true either. I really doubt you apply this standard across the board or else you'd hold equal contempt for people who do any work for financial or other gain.

I hold that standard across the board for people who latch themselves onto social issues claiming to want to help people when it’s quite obvious their motivations are actually more concerned with helping themselves by profiting off other people’s suffering.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's such a silly purity test. You might enjoy sitting about, passing judgement on anyone who actually does anything without it being completely silent. But I'm just happy there are organisations who work to publicise the info needed to identify and address men's issues.

By your own standards, because I’m not remaining silent about the issues I see with IMD, you call it a silly purity test. There’s another reason why I don’t court publicity - because I’m not a fcuking saint :pac: Basically if someone courts publicity for their own personal and financial gain, people will see them as courting publicity for their own personal and financial gain.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So while you say you're supportive of men's issues, It's an odd way to support them by standing in the way of actually doing any thing about them, denigrating those who actually do things about men's issues, and oppose a great initiative like IMD as an opportunity to get public attention for the issues and solutions.

Might be a misunderstanding there if I hadn’t already said I don’t care for the gender of the person who needs a bit of help, but I don’t categorise like that, so I wouldn’t ever say I was supportive of men’s issues, because I don’t buy into the notion of men’s issues, women’s issues, issues, issues issues... I simply treat people as I would want to be treated myself, and it’s because of other people who helped me when I needed it, that I believe in paying that help forward. I don’t need nor want anything in return.

IMD isn’t at all doing what you say it’s doing, and the evidence of that is clear.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is there even such thing as an entirely altruistic act? If someone gets something as little as a sense of wellbeing from doing something good, then I imagine they would fall foul of your purity test. The fact is that people usually do things as a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Yes there is, plenty. You may imagine whatever you like, I only have a problem with you accusing me of things I haven’t done. I have never disputed the fact that people usually do things as a mutually beneficial arrangement, what is in dispute is people who exploit other people - the complete opposite of a mutually beneficial arrangement. I don’t have any problem with an arrangement that’s mutually beneficial, that’s how societies progress in a positive direction... and then there are the minority of people in society who try and exploit people’s circumstances for their own personal and financial gain. Those are the people I’m referring to.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If you care about men's issues then you'd support things that would help address them. And getting public support for identifying problems and solutions involved highlighting those problems and solutions. That's just how the world works.

No, that’s how some people work, in the pursuit of their own personal and financial gain. The vast majority of people do not work like that, because they generally don’t care for “issues”, they care for, and they care about other people, regardless of gender, sex, etc, because the vast majority of people aren’t interested in promoting divisive identity politics for their own personal and financial gain.

Your point about whether or not I care about men’s issues is the same as your earlier attempt to imply I don’t care about issues which affect men because I’m critical of IMD. You’re conflating two things in order to portray them as one, but they’re not even related. Men don’t exist in a vacuum any more than women don’t exist in a vacuum, nor anyone else based upon their identity exists in a vacuum. I care about supporting people, and that’s why I see IMD as nothing more than a small minority of people who want to support themselves by exploiting other people. I’m not into that kind of behaviour and I won’t support it, and that’s why I don’t support IMD or any of the rest of these “days” which are IMO just another excuse for some people to promote themselves in order to portray themselves as saints, while the evidence is clear that they care less about people, and more about their own personal and financial gain.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I hold that standard across the board for people who latch themselves onto social issues claiming to want to help people when it’s quite obvious their motivations are actually more concerned with helping themselves by profiting off other people’s suffering.





By your own standards, because I’m not remaining silent about the issues I see with IMD, you call it a silly purity test. There’s another reason why I don’t court publicity - because I’m not a fcuking saint :pac: Basically if someone courts publicity for their own personal and financial gain, people will see them as courting publicity for their own personal and financial gain.





Might be a misunderstanding there if I hadn’t already said I don’t care for the gender of the person who needs a bit of help, but I don’t categorise like that, so I wouldn’t ever say I was supportive of men’s issues, because I don’t buy into the notion of men’s issues, women’s issues, issues, issues issues... I simply treat people as I would want to be treated myself, and it’s because of other people who helped me when I needed it, that I believe in paying that help forward. I don’t need nor want anything in return.

IMD isn’t at all doing what you say it’s doing, and the evidence of that is clear.





Yes there is, plenty. You may imagine whatever you like, I only have a problem with you accusing me of things I haven’t done. I have never disputed the fact that people usually do things as a mutually beneficial arrangement, what is in dispute is people who exploit other people - the complete opposite of a mutually beneficial arrangement. I don’t have any problem with an arrangement that’s mutually beneficial, that’s how societies progress in a positive direction... and then there are the minority of people in society who try and exploit people’s circumstances for their own personal and financial gain. Those are the people I’m referring to.





No, that’s how some people work, in the pursuit of their own personal and financial gain. The vast majority of people do not work like that, because they generally don’t care for “issues”, they care for, and they care about other people, regardless of gender, sex, etc, because the vast majority of people aren’t interested in promoting divisive identity politics for their own personal and financial gain.

Your point about whether or not I care about men’s issues is the same as your earlier attempt to imply I don’t care about issues which affect men because I’m critical of IMD. You’re conflating two things in order to portray them as one, but they’re not even related. Men don’t exist in a vacuum any more than women don’t exist in a vacuum, nor anyone else based upon their identity exists in a vacuum. I care about supporting people, and that’s why I see IMD as nothing more than a small minority of people who want to support themselves by exploiting other people. I’m not into that kind of behaviour and I won’t support it, and that’s why I don’t support IMD or any of the rest of these “days” which are IMO just another excuse for some people to promote themselves in order to portray themselves as saints, while the evidence is clear that they care less about people, and more about their own personal and financial gain.

In reference to the bolded bits in order:
Why only for social issues? Why must people pass your purity test to do anything social?

I don't expect anyone is a saint. If they do good, that's good enough for me.
Your approach of "let he without sin be the first to actually do something to help" is a sure-fire way to make sure the problems are not addressed.

What evidence are you talking about there?

I don't see how there could be an altruistic act in social issues that could pass your purity test. How to you get the word out to the general public without anyone gaining an any advantage? If I heard someone doing some good work to help with men's issues, I'd admire them for it and that would surely cause them to fail your purity test. But mainly I cant figure out why you bother with your purity test. Maybe cynical people sit about judging whether everyone involved in a social issue are doing it for purely altruistic reasons. But by that stage you've already missed the point.

Luckily, most people don't bother with your purity tests. They just get information and once they have it, they cant unlearn it - Like my mate who found out about male suicide rates. She has a positive attitude towards men's mental health and takes the issue seriously now. Job's oxo, wouldn't you agree?

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

Do you bully people in real life too?

The Dunne explained that his real life experiences has soured him on IMD and he has stated that he very much supports men's issues. he should be allowed the courtesy of being able to air his opinion without being told he is part of any problem.

He has all the freedom in the world to air his opinion. and if he's part of the problem, then I surely have the freedom to 'air my opinion' too, right?

If that's their reason for being sour about IMD, that's fine. They are now acting as a part of the problem - which is their right.

If Louise O'Neill was talking down IMD, some of the same posters would be up in arms about it.

Ironicname

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

If that's their reason for being sour about IMD, that's fine. They are now acting as a part of the problem - which is their right.

So I take it the answer is yes. You do bully people in real life.

topmanamillion

Robert_Beach wrote: »

Movember was discontinued in our workplace last year after operating for numerous previous years. I thought it cringey but meh, always threw them a few quid.

But apparently it excluded people who, well can't grow a tash. So it's gone. We have a cake sale for a cancer charity for all now.

I don't think any International Mens Day stuff would fly.

How would they feel about Bushvember?

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Job's oxo, wouldn't you agree?

No I wouldn’t agree, because I don’t agree with your methodology and I don’t agree with your “end justifies the means” way of claiming you’re helping people by classifying people into categories as to whether they’re either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Your own purity test appears to be entirely based upon those people who agree with your solution, and those people who don’t are part of the problem standing in your way of promoting yourself while claiming you’re addressing social issues and just want to get information out there.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I wouldn’t agree, because I don’t agree with your methodology and I don’t agree with your “end justifies the means” way of claiming you’re helping people by classifying people into categories as to whether they’re either part of the problem or part of the solution.

Your own purity test appears to be entirely based upon those people who agree with your solution, and those people who don’t are part of the problem standing in your way of promoting yourself while claiming you’re addressing social issues and just want to get information out there.

Just to be clear, I said "Like my mate who found out about male suicide rates. She has a positive attitude towards men's mental health and takes the issue seriously now. Job's oxo, wouldn't you agree?"

And you don't agree the job's oxo because you don't agree with "the methodology". The methodology was simply telling her the facts that men commit suicide at a high rate. What's wrong with the methodology in that case? Who was hurt in that instance and why would you oppose what happened in that instance?

Ironicname

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Just to be clear, I said "Like my mate who found out about male suicide rates. She has a positive attitude towards men's mental health and takes the issue seriously now. Job's oxo, wouldn't you agree?"

Which rock does she live under?

suicide_circus

you know a "day" is meaningless toss when you need to be told about by the media

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

Which rock does she live under?

Great question. She's an educated woman, early-mid 20s. Generally informed on the world around her, great job. Loves her dad, speaks very highly of him and they spend time together doing things like voluntary nature watch for government stats. (That's why I said I would have expected better of her when she made the craic about every day being men's day) She just didn't know about the suicide stats.

You know the suicide stats presumably because you're involved in chats like this. But most people aren't involved in chats like this. Suicide stats don't come up in normal conversation very often. That's One of the main points of IMD. To give context to having chats like the one we had in the pub that time.

Now, OEJ seems to think that simple discussion was not justified because it exploited people (That's my understanding but we'll see if they clarify). I think it was a perfectly good example of spreading the relevant info. It was a good humoured chat only lasted a minute or less, which resulted in someone changing their attitude towards a serious issue.