J Mysterio wrote: » I thought they were mildly entertaining at first. Horse Outside was funny. After that they gradually became more iritating. As a Limerick man, I also think they are inadvertently another negative association to the city we don't really need, comedy or not. You don't want people to think of Limerick and think of some twat with a bag on his head. Since they have 'gone political' I have no time for them, they don't have the aptitude for it. Hearing them lecture us on the Late Late was really annoying. That show on the Rising was ****e too.
Ipso wrote: » So things were grand before neoliberalism when wimmin were at home? Doesn't equality mean women are free to work where they want, aspire to be in roles of power like men etc One could argue that having two wage earners in a family causes as much trouble as (similar to cheap credit) more money becomes available and when there is more money then there is a knock on effect of high prices. I think neoliberalism is a bit of a simplistic bogey man, personally I think the worlds economy is too reliant on financial services, and another thing is that poorer countries are now catching up and competing with the rest of the world. When rejecting neoliberalism should we leave less developed countries on the slag heap?
Dannyriver wrote: » Who said things were grand, the argument was that living up to traditional gender roles was more feasible economically before the demise of workers rights which came hand in hand with neoliberalism. And no we shouldn't leave less developed countries on the scrap heap we should stop treating their resources like the cash cow that western corporations under the guise of neoliberalism have continued to do for years.
weldoninhio wrote: » Was there also a huge depression problem when hunter/gatherer man could no longer hunt meat and had to get a “good job” with a “decent wage”. Jesus Man with bag on head talks bollix, pseudo intellectuals think they’ll look intelligent by agreeing with him. It’s laughable.
RocketRaccoon wrote: » Internet warriors disagree with what man says simply because he has a bag on his head, completely ignoring what he ACTUALLY says. It's laughable.
Dannyriver wrote: » It's obvious here that he is using feminism in the traditional sense of equality and not in the radical feminism that makes all the headlines these days. What do you think he means by it?
I've a feeling that the word feminism causes an emotional reaction for a lot of men and their critical faculties get hijacked which in a way is understandable due to the fact that radical feminism seems to get all the headlines I 've a feeling that had he used the word equality instead of feminism there would be far less furore.
Dannyriver wrote: » It doesnt, but before neoliberalism when wages were decent and men went to work and had the kind of job security and workers rights that allowed banks to trust them with mortgages and women stayed at home to mind the kids the idea of the traditional role of the man as the breadwinner was feasible. All he is saying is that it's no longer feasible for a lot of men so rather than clinging to that gender role it would be wiser for men to embrace the notion of equality between the sexes and deal with the reality of society as it is.
J Mysterio wrote: » But he's only talking shiţe anyway. He lays it out there like it's something profound. He's like Bob Geldof, or Bono - preaching.
andekwarhola wrote: » Genuine Irish surrealism at its finest.
Wibbs wrote: » It's not "obvious" at all. If he had meant "equality" then maybe he should have used the word? Instead we get "There's a crisis in young men in this country - they need feminism" and the usual "feminist" buzzwords like "patriarchy". If he thinks "feminism" equals egalitarianism he's an even more naive individual. Oh and that's mainstream feminism by the way DR, not the radicals. Well for me and I suspect an increasing number of folks who actually delve into the movement, "feminism" is increasingly looked like gender politics, victims and victimisers, wrapped up in utter bullsh1t. I would have described myself as a feminist if asked in the 80's and 90's, today I would most certainly not. Even I can only take so much bullsh1t before I reach a limit. And again if someone is representing as some sort of mouthpiece for a generation or gender then it behoves them to be at least accurate in the words they choose to use. Oh you meant X? Well then bloody well state X. If you didn't know what you meant, then get off the stage you tyro. Again which is fine, but the reality is often very different. Study after study worldwide shows that women on average go for men slightly taller, slightly older and slightly higher in job/social status/earnings, so even in our couples need both working to live a life society the old underlying tendencies are in play. To be fair to Ireland it's not nearly so bad as other cultures, even within Europe. In America for example that tendency would be even more at play. It is more egalitarian here which is a good thing. Never mind that it's long been the case, certainly before his generation, that couples had to pool resources to buy houses and set up home and family. I'm the generation ahead of him and that was most certainly the case. Outside of a few wealthy guys with wives who became "ladies who lunch" with "careers" like interior designer, modernist knitter and yogic candle maker(with added sage. And blonde), the vast majority of couples I know are of the throughly modern both pulling their weights and were expected to be since at least the 1980's. Yet it's only nowadays we're seeing crisis of mental health among young men, who have almost to a man grown up in such an environment? Doesn't add up for me. So what could be the reasons? In mental health generally I would look to greater awareness, which is good. However greater awareness also runs the risk of self diagnosis and a medical profession that helps that along. I can walk into any GP within a five mile radius of my gaff, tell them I'm not sleeping that well and feel stressed and at least half will write me a script for SSRI's. The over medicalisation of mental health and normal human experiences another pressure. There is also a generation divide in the west. Namely those born and raised before the interwebs and those born and raised with it. The Interwebs has been an incredible boon to mankind, but coming along for the ride has been information overload, information vagueness and an increased sense of fear. Ideas and illnesses once rarely heard or seen, often because they were rare, are now seen to be "common" because a few people get together online and make a much bigger noise than they could have before. QV Feminists, Red Pill muppets, conspiracy nuts of all stripes and so forth. It makes the radical seem mainstream. Along with that social media brings its own issues. It plugs into the natural human need for social connection and recognition. Which is fine, but also amplifies the equally natural tendency of narcissism, often to scary degrees. Even scarier when it's not recognised. More, because of how social media can be framed some promote an ever more perfect world that they inhabit, but you don't, you failure. An ever increasing arms race of oneupman(woman)ship. IF you're not in you can't win. Or not in enough. I can certainly say I would fcuking hate to be an adolescent these days, boy or girl(though IMHO the girls have it worse in a couple of areas). Add in the economic fallout from the "Celtic Tiger". Many of the cubs have seen parents and lifestyles go from shiny to sh1tty in ten years. That's gonna have an affect. The jobs market when they leave schooling another. That's in general. Male specific? Yes I would agree the Provider thing is in play, but it's coming late enough to the party IMH. Another would be the good to see increasing success of women in academia. That may make some men feel left behind. Especially as classrooms are overwhelming taught by women, who even with the best will in the world will naturally tend to teach in ways more likely to be conducive to how girls learn. Feminism? If anything it's a negative for young men. If any young man was to delve into feminism and I mean mainstream feminism, he will read and hear that all the ills of this world are because of men. Even if it's couched in patriarchy, that's still men. Even if his sorry state is accepted, it's still because of how his gender have allegedly shaped the world. Women are always the agentless victims and men are always to blame. If a young man is hearing that on the regular, do you really think that's going to make him feel secure, appreciated, valued? Especially when he reads and sees that his women peers are clearly more valued and supported by the society at large? Like hell it will. I'm listening to what he's saying. Still sounds like the usual easily digestible, making the right noises soundbites that go down well with some.
Wibbs wrote: » I'm listening to what he's saying. Still sounds like the usual easily digestible, making the right noises soundbites that go down well with some.
Dannyriver wrote: » But I fail to see why it's relevant to the point Blindboy made about feminism which by definition is equality of the sexes.../... And yes I still think It is pretty obvious that he meant the traditional meaning of the term...which as I ve said by definition means equality of the sexes.
Prune Tracy wrote: » I don't agree with the insults here (awful childishness to be resorting to) and I don't always disagree with him (I probably agree with him a lot) but I do disagree with people who think he's saying really daring stuff that the establishment doesn't want said. He's not doing that at all IMO. As a woman, and a woman who might be considered an old-skool feminist, I don't think young men need feminism.
Wibbs wrote: » No, it most certainly does not mean or define equality DR and the clue is in the very name. It is not humanism, or egalitarianism, but feminism. "Fem". Woman. that is a huge part of the problem in gender politics and general bullsh1t today. Too many, naturally believe it means equality, when even the most cursory of glances shows that to be at best a half truth, at worst(and more usually) a nonsense. Now it started off as a strive for equality, an equality of genders regardless. In the early days of the Suffragettes those women wanted true equality, up to the point of campaigning for the right of women to be tried and even executed for the same crimes as men(because generally the "patriarchal" courts gave women more leeway). I would be happy enough to call myself a Suffragette, but a feminist? No bloody way. Since that time and especially in the last twenty odd years "feminism" has in the mainstream sought special treatment for women and a general admonishment for men. So where once the Suffragettes called for equality in treatment in law, nowadays the "feminists" look for and get lesser sentences for women and lesser gaol time. If they even end up in court. A very different take. Secondly the Suffragettes didn't automatically see women as victims, quite the opposite. Today the "feminists" absorb victimhood as a near birthright and place blame on men as a near given. As I've noted; if one was to sum up modern "feminism" it would be thus: Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame. Seriously DR, look at current mainstream "feminism" and put it through the above filter and I can guarantee you it will fit. Even when some women are acknowledged to be beyond the Pale, it is couched in terms that it is still Men's™ fault. Try it for yourself D if you don't believe me. OIT works Every. Single. Time. Which should tell you all you need to know about how "equality"is defined within that politic.
Dannyriver wrote: » However, at the risk of repeating myself for which I apologise in advance, I do think the traditional stereotypes of men being the strong able provider [boys dont cry etc] puts a lot of pressure on young men and I believe that s all that BB said.
Had he spoke about third wave feminism etc then I would be disagreeing with him also. But everything else he said in the interview and since suggests otherwise.
Wibbs wrote: » Which again makes sense. On the surface. Yet when the full on traditional stereotypes were in play, the male suicide rate was lower. The male suicide rate of today is in a far more "feminist" society, so how does one explain that? It does and it doesn't. His rhetoric is well couched in the terms of the new wave "feminism" and obviously so. And the usual "feminist" taking heads, including the utterly daft hardline made mainstream, have the horn for him. Which should tell you all you need to know about how it is coming across in a few quarters, even if I personally don't believe he means it in those terms and does mean well and wants to get that out.
Hammer89 wrote: » It's not digestible. Go out and find 10 people from his generation who knows what the f*ck he's on about when speaking about neoliberalism.
Dannyriver wrote: » He cannot be responsible for who has the horn for him or the ones on here who think he s a preachy ****, I think we could both agree with that.
Wibbs wrote: » Which again makes sense. On the surface. Yet when the full on traditional stereotypes were in play, the male suicide rate was lower. The male suicide rate and dissatisfaction and confusion of today is much higher in a far more "feminist" society, so how does one explain that? It does and it doesn't. His rhetoric is well couched in the terms of the new wave "feminism" and obviously so. And the usual "feminist" taking heads, including the utterly daft hardline made mainstream, have the horn for him. Which should tell you all you need to know about how it is coming across in a few quarters, even if I personally don't believe he means it in those terms and does mean well and wants to get that out.
mzungu wrote: » True, but could this not be down to underreporting?
mzungu wrote: » True, but could this not be down to underreporting? IMO male suicide has always been a problem, we have only become fully aware of it now that a spade is mostly called a spade when listing the cause of death.
Wibbs wrote: » Oh I do agree DR. However if one uses the terminology of a politic it is not daft to assume people will react positively or negatively to that politic's terminology. IE; "what men need is feminism". That sets out a very particular stall for any man or woman who might explore further. By the by DR, I don't have an issue with him, or anyone else, seeing things as bad and trying too make them better and the effort to do so is bloody laudable. More power to him and anyone who does. However one must also be careful about jumping on and using the terminology of currently fashionable and the surface thumbnail sketches of bandwagons of any stripe. In this case "feminism".
Wibbs wrote: » OH that is certainly true for a large proportion, however stats show that in recent years middle aged men, who were once the least likely to go and kill themselves(and generally stable in death rates overall) are now one of the most vulnerable groups. Given they were the male group least likely to die by any cause that says something. I'm not sure what, but something.
Wibbs wrote: » Which again makes sense. On the surface. Yet when the full on traditional stereotypes were in play, the male suicide rate was lower. The male suicide rate and dissatisfaction and confusion of today is much higher in a far more "feminist" society, so how does one explain that?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/c599644a213e5f18742e0afff85076a6.svg)
