nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Sky King

People do know this is a character right? And not an actual person?

Does it strike anyone else as strange that a made-up persona with a fake voice, parody accent and a fking plastic bag on his head is treated like a normal, regular person in debates and current affairs TV shows? And given the same credibility and respect as an actual real person?

Imagine Fr. Dougal Mcguire, Dustin the Turkey and Fortycoats appearing our incisive current affairs shows discussing mental health with Alan Partridge adjudicating.

Or discussing the 8th amendment and feminism with Mrs Brown, The Bottler and Podge and Rodge? It would be treated like a joke (obviously), but when the prank phone call making, glue-huffing, spastic hawk-toting Blindboy talks serious we all suddenly have to sit up take it seriously.

If I was asked to debate on the same show as a parody character I'd be more than a little pissed off.

By all means share your story on mental health or offer an opinion on our education system. But for fk sake would you give us and the other people on the show the respect of doing it yourself, in a real voice? Without a fking bag on your head?

Alternatively if you prefer holding on to the bag, you could try going back to... you know... being funny. And less preachy.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

professore

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Do a simple test, would you like the term toxic feminity, toxic blackness, toxic [any immutable trait]? Would you try and justify it in other cases? Associating toxicity with a whole population? 'oh but it means emotional repression', then say that. Women must have a problem with emotional instability, lets call it toxic feminity... it's just dumb and you'd be forgiven for thinking their was a not-so-pleasant sentiment underneath

The original meaning of hysteria is similar to toxic masculinity in that it is a uniquely female condition. Today it means something else unrelated to gender, but if "toxic masculinity" is OK to use as a term, then I think this one is a good fit as a definition of "toxic femininity". We all know lovely women but there are plenty that fit the definition below - so in the interests of fairness and bringing the genders closer together let's spread the new term and definition #ToxicFemininity

While the word "hysteria" originates from the Greek word for uterus, hystera (ὑστέρα), the word itself is not an ancient one, and the term "hysterical suffocation" – meaning a feeling of heat and inability to breathe – was instead used in ancient Greek medicine. This suggests an entirely physical cause for the symptoms but, by linking them to the uterus, suggests that the disorder can only be found in women.[1] Historically, hysteria was thought to manifest itself in women with a variety of symptoms, including: anxiety, shortness of breath, fainting, insomnia, irritability, nervousness, as well as sexually forward behaviour.

Call Me Jimmy

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can see it occasionally used that way, but I see nothing to assume it was A) defined to do that intended for that or C) was "imported" with that purpose in mind.

I think we can look at both how SOME people use a word, and what that word was originally coined to mean, when discussing it. To focus on one and not the other as you contrive to do here is likely only to serve as a vehicle for your own issues.

The first result google throws up for example:

"Toxic masculinity is thus defined by adherence to traditional male gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger."

I see nothing wrong with that definition. And I see every good reason to work to move our society AWAY from what it describes.

And no, I see nothing in that definition that links it to YOUR definition of it as merely being "bad behavior". Bad behavior appears to be nothing to do with the reason the term was created. Quite the opposite, the behavior "toxic masculinity" describes in that definition is behavior we once thought for male was GOOD not bad behavior.

Do a simple test, would you like the term toxic feminity, toxic blackness, toxic [any immutable trait]? Would you try and justify it in other cases? Associating toxicity with a whole population? 'oh but it means emotional repression', then say that. Women must have a problem with emotional instability, lets call it toxic feminity... it's just dumb and you'd be forgiven for thinking their was a not-so-pleasant sentiment underneath

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

It's a bull**** term imported from America to demonize men.

I can see it occasionally used that way, but I see nothing to assume it was A) defined to do that

intended for that or C) was "imported" with that purpose in mind.

I think we can look at both how SOME people use a word, and what that word was originally coined to mean, when discussing it. To focus on one and not the other as you contrive to do here is likely only to serve as a vehicle for your own issues.

The first result google throws up for example:

"Toxic masculinity is thus defined by adherence to traditional male gender roles that restrict the kinds of emotions allowable for boys and men to express, including social expectations that men seek to be dominant (the "alpha male") and limit their emotional range primarily to expressions of anger."

I see nothing wrong with that definition. And I see every good reason to work to move our society AWAY from what it describes.

And no, I see nothing in that definition that links it to YOUR definition of it as merely being "bad behavior". Bad behavior appears to be nothing to do with the reason the term was created. Quite the opposite, the behavior "toxic masculinity" describes in that definition is behavior we once thought for male was GOOD not bad behavior.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Heh "toxic masculinity" is probably a phrase that triggers even more than "feminism" does. Part of me likes it but part of me doesn't. The part of me that likes it is the one that understands what it is meant to mean. The part of me that does not, does so because of many of the same reasons as above. It is a buzz word thrown around a bit too much and it is used almost as reflexively as phrases like "Homophobia" often in terms that do not fit what I think it means.

Quite often people using it can not define what they think it means. They do not seem to know what toxic masculinity means. Or to be even able to name an example someone who is highly "masculine" but in a way that is not at all toxic. Whereas I can name people who literally ooze masculinity but are, for want of a better term, outright sweethearts.

Ah language. It unites us and divides us in some of the most tragic and comical of ways.

It's a bull**** term imported from America to demonize men. So called 'toxic masculinity' used to be called bad behavior, but now we need to engage in pseudo intellectual babble to pick on one group of people.

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh yeah sure no issues with that, each to their own and all. Boards can be a bit of an echo chamber at times, so I was just referring to you agreeing with criticism of the recent podcasts but then in the same breathe you said you hadn't listened to either of them. Not having a go or anything - it's all grand like.

I wouldn't go on boards recommendations, I'd go on people I know IRL who have a similar taste in the show to me.

nozzferrahhtoo

Heh "toxic masculinity" is probably a phrase that triggers even more than "feminism" does. Part of me likes it but part of me doesn't. The part of me that likes it is the one that understands what it is meant to mean. The part of me that does not, does so because of many of the same reasons as above. It is a buzz word thrown around a bit too much and it is used almost as reflexively as phrases like "Homophobia" often in terms that do not fit what I think it means.

Quite often people using it can not define what they think it means. They do not seem to know what toxic masculinity means. Or to be even able to name an example someone who is highly "masculine" but in a way that is not at all toxic. Whereas I can name people who literally ooze masculinity but are, for want of a better term, outright sweethearts.

Ah language. It unites us and divides us in some of the most tragic and comical of ways.

Mickiemcfist

kubjones wrote: »

I agree with both sides of this debate and I think the part everyone is getting caught up on is the intent of his use of the word "Feminism".

As we all know, it has become a bit of a buzzword at the moment, quite a polarizing one really, based on the misandry that has started to spew from the 3rd and 4th wave. The ones that scream the loudest.

I think the problem with the term "Feminism" now is that it has been annexed by these waves, distorting the original message of Feminism which was once equality.

What you'll notice about a lot of the first and second wave feminists is that they're abandoning the term feminist and adopted things like "equalist" or other things instead.

There's no doubt about the original meaning of Feminism, but the largest advocates of Feminism these days are the man-haters, the ones that spread harmful disinformation and propaganda and to support that movement would mean one was either being disingenuous or misinformed.

Part of me thinks Blindboy was giving a little nod to the feminist resurgence while also making a good point. If I were to use an example, its like saying "Its important to smoke because it gets you outside for a while." One positive with a larger negative impact.

If I were asked the same question, from experience, I would say men need more positive masculine figures in their life. I had an ex-girlfriend that had a troubled brother, lived in a house with five women, no father around. He was getting into a lot of trouble up to the point that I met her. I propositioned him to come boxing with me some time, he was reluctant, but I managed to force his hand. Once he had adopted a discipline that embraces masculine stereotypes but in a productive way, he became a lot more comfortable in himself and quickly fell out of his habits with bad company in lieu of training to become a champion boxer. He's still at it, but also got himself a job and is making an effort with his family.

I have no data to back my claim other than my own personal experiences, and I'm not saying its not important for men to also be able to embrace some traditionally feminine stereotypes either, but there's all the evidence in the world to suggest people aren't blank slates at birth and not all character is learned, we need to be able to take these biological differences into consideration and encourage masculinity in a positive way.

But that's just my opinion:pac:

Nail on the head. I'm an everyday red blooded male & it has got to the point where if someone says Feminism my immediate reaction is to roll my eyes & prepare to hear how I'm somehow in the wrong about god knows what.

That's not to say women's rights offend me, I'm hugely supportive of equality on all levels & would hate to think that my sister/female friends would have a harder time of it than myself & my male friends.

I am a fan of blindboy but I do think he overeggs the pudding a bit with the toxic masculinity/feminism stuff, but I heard nothing in that most recent podcast that offended me & Louise O'Neill seemed absolutely fine & made some very good points. (I had never heard of her, maybe she's a manhater, but I can only judge what I heard myself)

When it comes to depression & anxiety, of which I've had both & am quite good at managing now, Blindboy really knows his stuff & while the content of the podcast is sometimes off the wall, the "podcast hug" genuinely has a relaxing effect on me when I need it. So for all the complaints above, if he can help someone who is a more at risk sufferer than myself, surely that's a good thing? All he really does is direct people to counselling & normalises it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Why is that a concern though? A lot of voices that are important to people are presented "in character". Some people only appear in public in drag for example.

smurgen

Voice of a generation and he putting a fake twang in his accent.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ Sam Harris made a speech a few years ago on a similar theme. Whether or not we should even use the word "Atheism" any more. Especially in his country where polls suggested people are less likely to vote an openly atheist candidate for president than they would a pedophile. So the word itself has a level of toxicity while bringing little benefit. So he wondered out loud if it would not be best to drop it entirely.

Rather he thought we should go under the radar and confront unsubstantiated nonsense, religious or otherwise, under the banners of rationality, evidence, discourse and substantiation. Calling out bull**** where we see it. And not requiring the term atheist at all.

Feminism is probably in a similar position where we can wonder the same thing out loud as to what is best. If we want equality and similar then we can call for exactly those things without use of that word at all.

When I see two people doing the same job and the female one getting paid less, I do not have to use the word feminism to call that into question. If I hear lads I know objectifying with "locker room language" some girl or woman I do not need to tell them to be more feminist to point out the harm and immaturity of their speech. I can just point out things about fairness, objectification, equality, justice, rationality. I do not need to claim to be, or use the word, feminist at all.

Not saying one way or the other really, but like Harris was I think it is just worth wondering out loud as to what is best here. It is a meta conversation worth having both in atheism and feminism.

kubjones

I agree with both sides of this debate and I think the part everyone is getting caught up on is the intent of his use of the word "Feminism".

As we all know, it has become a bit of a buzzword at the moment, quite a polarizing one really, based on the misandry that has started to spew from the 3rd and 4th wave. The ones that scream the loudest.

I think the problem with the term "Feminism" now is that it has been annexed by these waves, distorting the original message of Feminism which was once equality.

What you'll notice about a lot of the first and second wave feminists is that they're abandoning the term feminist and adopted things like "equalist" or other things instead.

There's no doubt about the original meaning of Feminism, but the largest advocates of Feminism these days are the man-haters, the ones that spread harmful disinformation and propaganda and to support that movement would mean one was either being disingenuous or misinformed.

Part of me thinks Blindboy was giving a little nod to the feminist resurgence while also making a good point. If I were to use an example, its like saying "Its important to smoke because it gets you outside for a while." One positive with a larger negative impact.

If I were asked the same question, from experience, I would say men need more positive masculine figures in their life. I had an ex-girlfriend that had a troubled brother, lived in a house with five women, no father around. He was getting into a lot of trouble up to the point that I met her. I propositioned him to come boxing with me some time, he was reluctant, but I managed to force his hand. Once he had adopted a discipline that embraces masculine stereotypes but in a productive way, he became a lot more comfortable in himself and quickly fell out of his habits with bad company in lieu of training to become a champion boxer. He's still at it, but also got himself a job and is making an effort with his family.

I have no data to back my claim other than my own personal experiences, and I'm not saying its not important for men to also be able to embrace some traditionally feminine stereotypes either, but there's all the evidence in the world to suggest people aren't blank slates at birth and not all character is learned, we need to be able to take these biological differences into consideration and encourage masculinity in a positive way.

But that's just my opinion:pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Not particularly N. The general consensus among most folks around "feminism" is that it's about "equality".

That is not at odds with what I said though. I said "I think we have a single word "feminism" which has come to mean too many different things to too many people.".

That is a statement that remains valid even if there is a general consensus around the word too. But there is too many other people all the same, with two many personal meanings of the word, that do not help matters. And when a word comes to mean too much to too many, it can end up meaning nothing.

And we see that very thing here. Your own admitted emotional reaction to the word itself meant you attacked it rather than any substance in the point made in the video. You distilled the entire point down just to the opening line, in a reduction to absurdity distillation of what the point was, and addressed none of the content at all until pushed.

And that is an issue. When genuine discussion on the substance of a point or subject is derailed because people get uppity over a word used while making the point.... then there is a failure of discourse. And this is rarely if ever a good thing.

Wibbs wrote: »

However it takes only the most scant of enquiry into modern feminism to see that this is a nonsense on more than a few levels.

Which you are more than welcome to do but it is IRRELEVANT to the point I am making and the one blind boy is making. Because whatever you think the word means personally, what you think it means in the modern world, or what you want it to mean..... the ONLY definition relevant to parsing the mans point is the one he was using while making that point. Anything else is deflationary rabbit holes.

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I have pointed out ad nauseam on this matter, find me any feminist talking head - and in the mainstream, so this idea it's only the fringe elements are to blame goes out the window as an excuse - that states anything that goes against the credo that women are always victims and it's always men's fault. Good luck with that.

This thread was revived due to a talk Blindboy had with Louise ONeill and if you listen to the entirety of that podcast nothing within it fits the description you offer here. Peoples called it a "sh*t show" therefore seemingly on no basis other than their already preconceived notions of the two people involved. When actually confronted on what was "shi*t show" about it they merely back peddaled to say they personally found the conversation "mundane". Quite a different evaluation by far, I am sure you will agree.

Unfortunately with "talking heads" however there is media selection to contend with. Because the ones that become known to us, reported on, catapulted into social media and so forth.... are the reactionary types that attract attention solely BECAUSE the fit the kind of description that fuels you being so easily triggered by a mere world.... let alone the subject as whole which I suspect you also have issues with that could be addressed in the proper context.

Wibbs wrote: »

That same ad nauseam point of mine has yet to be tested to anything like the point of failure. You yourself multiquoted me but left out the points that would contradict that credo.

I left out material that has absolutely nothing to do with the points I, and Blindboy, were actually making. As well I should. No more. No less. Plus you are now discussing, in a reply to a post that was not to you, content of a post you have ignored replying to that was to you. Which risks muddying the waters a little by breaking the flow of conversation.

I am still discussing pretty much nothing more than his point, and your initial description of it. The rabbit hole of discussing feminism in and of itself is opening in various places in yours posts, and I am not interested in climbing in.

I do not find your initial description of his point in that speech valid, informative or representative. Or honest really. Just colored and biased and contrived and perhaps even mallicious. I am also not at all moved by people saying he was not clear or could have been clearer. On the contrary having watched the video three times last night while writing these posts I realized that video could be used in teaching a class on public speaking, debate, and point making.

Why? Because he made two points in it. The first on which we are discussing. Then from 1:50 onwards he made another one. The first one is a classic example of a point well made (regardless of whether you think the point is a good one or bad, I am not discussing that here, just HOW it was made). Almost perfect. The object the point was addressing was clear. The point itself was clear. The words used within it (in this case feminism) were defined WITHIN the point too. It is a self contained point without requirement for external reference or context, further inquiry or clarification. It is all there.

The point AFTER that however is the opposite. He dropped in random references to Devalera which appeared to mean little and say less. He threw in buzz words not defined, throwing words like misogynist and objectification around without grounding them. The absolute opposite of how to make a good point.

My feeling is he had rehearsed planned and scripted the first point and he did it well. Then the buzz from his applause made him just keep talking off script and he just started throwing it out.

But to claim as at least one user did that somehow the main point, the one we started discussing now since I replied to your first post yesterday, was "unclear" is just laughable really. It is the very definition of how to make a point clearly and well, regardless of how much or little you agree with the point itself.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

I would reckon that's down to the "soft" mental illnesses being more palatable. Before someone has a fit, I am NOT saying depression and anxiety can't be truly terrible conditions, even fatal for sufferers to go through. What I mean by "soft" is that they're not as obvious and hardcore compared to a disease like schizophrenia. Someone suffering from that terrible illness appears more "mad" to the layman. It's a more disturbing and messy condition. One might also suggest that depression and anxiety are more "fashionable" conditions and far more individuals suffer from them. The rates of schizophrenia are stable over time too, whereas depression and anxiety appear to vary over time.

Fashionable conditions

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Once again I'll say I see what you're saying. But I'll have to disagree, I don't think he should have to clarify something he doesn't necessarily recognize. If that rule was applied to everyone, then nobody would ever get to the point for the amount of clarifications they'd have to make.

Sure SF, but when someone is making a point, it behoves them to at least understand the wider story behind that point, rather than the philosophy they have bought into. That goes for any philosophy. If he doesn't necessarily recognise something at the foundations of the point he tries to make, then IMHO he needs to read more and inform himself before he goes off on a proselytising mission.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As with many things alas, I think we have a single word "feminism" which has come to mean too many different things to too many people. And as always when a word comes to mean too much, it ends up meaning too little.

Not particularly N. The general consensus among most folks around "feminism" is that it's about "equality". A consensus I would have agreed with in the past and would have even said I was a feminist and happy to do so. Yep. Digest that.

However it takes only the most scant of enquiry into modern feminism to see that this is a nonsense on more than a few levels. Like I have pointed out ad nauseam on this matter, find me any feminist talking head - and in the mainstream, so this idea it's only the fringe elements are to blame goes out the window as an excuse - that states anything that goes against the credo that women are always victims and it's always men's fault. Good luck with that. That same ad nauseam point of mine has yet to be tested to anything like the point of failure. You yourself multiquoted me but left out the points that would contradict that credo.

Me. Earlier wrote:

And these young lads know it, because they're not idiots, they see that this "inequality" he speaks of comes just as much from women in their circle - something he didn't address at all, not a shock as Women™ are always blameless to feminists

Ditto. The sequel wrote:

He repeats the notion easily dismissed that modern feminism is about equality. It is not. The clue is in the name. When was the last time a talking head feminist addressed areas where inequality goes against men? And I'd not expect them to. On the rare occasions they might skirt the issue, it's down to like the placcy bagman said "patriarchal thinking" and still somehow men's fault.

Well bugger me, it's a triptych wrote:

However: While it's all great in fantasy land that Women™ aren't too pushed by financial security in potential partners, the reality and one backed up by acres of research across the world is that Women™ on average seek out Men™ slightly older, taller and more successful than them. They certainly don't on average seek out younger, shorter poorer men. So some young lad on minimum wage or the dole, far more likely to be less educated than women his age and yes earn less(no doubt yer man also believes the wage gap in it's entirety) and that gap is widening year on year, how is he likely to fare in the dating game?

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Nice smart aleck response. I explained in the next sentence which you responded to so there;s no need for your snark response.

Well no you did not explain it. You threw out a few weird references to marxism and the like, and in no way explained anything about his position being "piffle".

So the "snark" exists in your imagination. The reality is you have thrown out the word "Piffle" without explaining how and why it is. You have thrown out some weird reference to marxism without clarifying that link in even the smallest way, even when asked to you just ignored the request.

Where is the explanation? I am not seeing it.

s7ryf3925pivug

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

A mate had a bad episode recently, he met random people of all ages on his walkabout and everyone of them knew something was up and called his home. He was hospitalised that day.

Glad he got help.

I know people who might have avoided hospitalisation and other issues from manic episodes had their symptoms been recognised earlier. I saw it coming with one and told them but was not listened to... It's counter intuitive to say the least that being full of energy and in a brilliant mood all the time might actually be symptoms of an illness that can have terrible consequences.

There are problems with funding of mental health services. There are serious problems with engagement in Limerick also. The equivalent services in Dublin are far more concerned with not alienating patients.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To you. But until such time as you can explain what is wrong with it, rather than scream words like that at it,you are not really progressing the conversation. Nor, I suspect, do you wish to.

AGAIN all his point appears to be is that men who are suffering anxiety or similar due to the idea of some disparity between the sexes...... could alleviate that suffering by realising the disparity is not there..... or helping to fight for change that removes any disparity that is there.

And I am genuinely struggling to see what you guys take issue to within that point. It is a simple "IF X is causing your suffering then realising X is not real..... or realising X is real but you can help in the fight to remove X..... could benefit you".

Now you are the one flinging words out without clarifying them and not being clear. What do you think "equality" means? Why do you think that your definition of it describes something that is nonsense? And what the hell is the link with marxism because no use of that word I have ever engaged in has required any link at all to marxism.

But again people are too keen to attack terms rather than content. You throw out bile at words like equality and marxism and at no point engage with the content that was in play when the words were used. "Equality" for me means removing the many archaic notions of gender roles that are no longer relevant (if some of them even ever were) and not treating people differently, where possible, due to what sex they happen to be.

Now you can either explain why THAT position is nonsense and engage with it, or you can moan about the word used to refer to it. But the latter is devoid of anything useful or helpful or honest that I can see at this time.

We all should have something to offer in any relationship we enter. So yes a man should have something to offer a woman just as the woman should have something to offer a man.

But there is nothing I can think of that he should have to offer a woman (or another man if he is homosexual for that matter) by virtue of his being male. And vice versa. And the content of his point in that clip suggests that is what he is getting at.

Nice smart aleck response. I explained in the next sentence which you responded to so there;s no need for your snark response.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

But it's all piffle.

To you. But until such time as you can explain what is wrong with it, rather than scream words like that at it,you are not really progressing the conversation. Nor, I suspect, do you wish to.

AGAIN all his point appears to be is that men who are suffering anxiety or similar due to the idea of some disparity between the sexes...... could alleviate that suffering by realising the disparity is not there..... or helping to fight for change that removes any disparity that is there.

And I am genuinely struggling to see what you guys take issue to within that point. It is a simple "IF X is causing your suffering then realising X is not real..... or realising X is real but you can help in the fight to remove X..... could benefit you".

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

And my guess his attitude is making men more miserable. Putting aside the equality nonsense - a crude marxist term that has for some reason become mainstream

Now you are the one flinging words out without clarifying them and not being clear. What do you think "equality" means? Why do you think that your definition of it describes something that is nonsense? And what the hell is the link with marxism because no use of that word I have ever engaged in has required any link at all to marxism.

But again people are too keen to attack terms rather than content. You throw out bile at words like equality and marxism and at no point engage with the content that was in play when the words were used. "Equality" for me means removing the many archaic notions of gender roles that are no longer relevant (if some of them even ever were) and not treating people differently, where possible, due to what sex they happen to be.

Now you can either explain why THAT position is nonsense and engage with it, or you can moan about the word used to refer to it. But the latter is devoid of anything useful or helpful or honest that I can see at this time.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

a man *should* have something to offer a woman. That doesn't mean they are not equals in a relationship.

We all should have something to offer in any relationship we enter. So yes a man should have something to offer a woman just as the woman should have something to offer a man.

But there is nothing I can think of that he should have to offer a woman (or another man if he is homosexual for that matter) by virtue of his being male. And vice versa. And the content of his point in that clip suggests that is what he is getting at.

Sweetemotion

Deleted User wrote: »

That's just not true.. he's talked about how people have been abused, how they're educated, how they're raised, religion, sexual orientation... I could go on..

Nope, apparently to blindboy the core issue for mental health issues with men is because they can't provide for a women

I agree with having been abused how they are educated, how they are raised, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc, But no lad has said those things to him. They always say it's because they can't provide for a woman.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Watcfhing the whole clip in question however I am not seeing how he could be any clearer than he was. He used the word feminism, he made a point, in that point he explained exactly what HE means by the word feminism. And if you take his definition, and parse his point through it, everything makes sense and is clear. Whether you AGREE with the point made then is a different issue. But to suggest he was not clear is not something I am buying at all.

He went on to clarify what he meant by it. And what he meant by it is that he sees feminism as making women and men equal and that this attitude he has encountered in some men of "I as a man need to have something to offer women" needs to be replaced by the concept of seeing the man and woman in any relationship as equals.

So this view of the man's place to be about "providing for a woman" is outdated in his view and he defines feminism as "Not about females being powerful but about redressing a balance and being about equality".

Not seeing any wrong with any of what he said myself to be honest. And rather than listen to what he said on the matter of feminism we see people on this thread introduce THEIR interpretation of "feminism" or "modern feminism" and judging what the speaker said by THOSE lights and definitions rather than his own. So the source of the confusion becomes them, not the speaker.

As with many things alas, I think we have a single word "feminism" which has come to mean too many different things to too many people. And as always when a word comes to mean too much, it ends up meaning too little.

But it's all piffle. And my guess his attitude is making men more miserable. Putting aside the equality nonsense - a crude marxist term that has for some reason become mainstream - a man *should* have something to offer a woman. That doesn't mean they are not equals in a relationship. I honestly have no idea what bagman is talking about - and I'm not sure he does either.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

But he has to be clearer on that if that is the case.
You can't go chucking out suggestions like that if you are not clear on it.

Watcfhing the whole clip in question however I am not seeing how he could be any clearer than he was. He used the word feminism, he made a point, in that point he explained exactly what HE means by the word feminism. And if you take his definition, and parse his point through it, everything makes sense and is clear. Whether you AGREE with the point made then is a different issue. But to suggest he was not clear is not something I am buying at all.

He went on to clarify what he meant by it. And what he meant by it is that he sees feminism as making women and men equal and that this attitude he has encountered in some men of "I as a man need to have something to offer women" needs to be replaced by the concept of seeing the man and woman in any relationship as equals.

So this view of the man's place to be about "providing for a woman" is outdated in his view and he defines feminism as "Not about females being powerful but about redressing a balance and being about equality".

Not seeing any wrong with any of what he said myself to be honest. And rather than listen to what he said on the matter of feminism we see people on this thread introduce THEIR interpretation of "feminism" or "modern feminism" and judging what the speaker said by THOSE lights and definitions rather than his own. So the source of the confusion becomes them, not the speaker.

As with many things alas, I think we have a single word "feminism" which has come to mean too many different things to too many people. And as always when a word comes to mean too much, it ends up meaning too little.

[Deleted User]

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The core issue of almost every lad he has ever talked too with mental health issues is because they don't know how can they provide for a woman.

That's just not true.. he's talked about how people have been abused, how they're educated, how they're raised, religion, sexual orientation... I could go on..

[Deleted User]

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

But he has to be clearer on that if that is the case.
You can't go chucking out suggestions like that if you are not clear on it.

The third and fourth wave loons are ****ing poison to both men and women.

Once again I'll say I see what you're saying. But I'll have to disagree, I don't think he should have to clarify something he doesn't necessarily recognize. If that rule was applied to everyone, then nobody would ever get to the point for the amount of clarifications they'd have to make.

There are people out there that think blowing themselves up is part of religion, so when someone talks about religion, should they have to clarify that blowing yourself up isn't part of religion?

Ulysses Gaze

Deleted User wrote: »

I see what you're getting at but maybe he doesn't consider that to be feminism anyway? I certainly don't. So maybe he doesn't see a need to come out and say it?

But he has to be clearer on that if that is the case.
You can't go chucking out suggestions like that if you are not clear on it.

The third and fourth wave loons are ****ing poison to both men and women.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

He said "young men need feminism". You are over-complicating things. He's a tool, and probably said it to get a good review in the Irish Times

Nothing "over complicating" about it. He said a one liner, and then went on to explain what he meant BY that one liner.

Taking into account a persons ENTIRE point is not over complicating anything, it is the opposite. Distilling a persons entire position down to the opening sentence they used to discuss it is to trivialise it, straw man it, dodge it, and ignore the content.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Besides, let's say you're right. Why in Gods name would feminism be an answer to their problems?

As I said already, if someone's suffering stems from an in-equality between the sexes..... a real one or an imagined one......... then one valid way to alleviate that suffering is to divest yourself of the imaginary ones, and work towards changing society on the real ones.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Feminism nowadays

I do not think your definition of it or "nowadays" is all that relevant. To understand a point made by someone who used the word "feminism" the only definition of the word "feminism" that is useful to parse the point..... is that of the person who made the point.

And as far as I know when HE uses the word he just means striving towards equality between the sexes.

So you can either parse his point through HIS understanding of the word.... and understand him...... or through YOUR understanding of the word..... and straw man him.

Past experience alas suggests which your choice will be.

But yes, I do think as I said already that he could have made the exact same point without using the word at all.

Sweetemotion

Deleted User wrote: »

He said a lad that came to him or some lads came to him and said "I have nothing to offer a woman... how am I supposed to provide for a woman?"..

His response was (remember this wasn't out of the blue, it's a response based on the above question):

"the fact of the matter is, that is a patriarchal attitude that is no longer relevant to us in the 21st century, neoliberalism has made it is such a way that if you were to go out and buy a house with a woman you must be equal, it's as simple as that. So if young men are carrying around this faulty view that they must provide for a woman? Forget about it. It can't happen. I would say to any young men out there.. feminism is not about females being powerful, it's about redressing an imbalance and equality, and [that] feminism is a very necessary thing for young men to have"

Pretty different to what you are saying he said now in fairness...

I'm not saying I agree with any of that, but yee are all misquoting him.

The core issue of almost every lad he has ever talked too with mental health issues is because they don't know how can they provide for a woman.

It is complete and utter nonsense.

[Deleted User]

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

But Chambers does not differentiate between First and Second Wave Feminism that is for most of what you posted and the bat**** crazy third and fourth wave loons that are shouting online that cis gendered white men need to stop their mansplaining, check their privilege and shut up. That women are the oppressed and straight white men are the oppressors of all around them.

Those loons are the most visible feminists in the virtual ecosystem that young men inhabit now.

As Bill Maher said...what are poor working class white men supposed to do:

'Cut their dicks off and check their privilege?'

I see what you're getting at but maybe he doesn't consider that to be feminism anyway? I certainly don't. So maybe he doesn't see a need to come out and say it?

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

I see what you're saying N, but I would respectfully disagree in large part because what passes for his "message" is all over the place.

If you say so, I have not listened to that much stuff at all. I was solely commenting on the one thing you pointed to, which is his "lads need feminism" comment on the Late Late. So what his general message is, or how all over the place it is, has nothing to do with what I was replying to.

And I find nothing wrong with anything he said there in that clip except, possibly:

1) he could have made the same point just as well, or even better, without using the trigger word feminism which shoots certain peoples hackles up.

2) I do not know how many people are suffering from what he describes in the first place. 2 people or 20,000. I simply do not know. You say "bugger all". I say I simply do not know. I would not be surprised if such archaic notions are still out there in some people, and they suffer needlessly for it. But I would also not expect it to be THAT many.

Wibbs wrote: »

He conflates "providing for" and having "something to offer" a woman.

Not so sure there. I think HE meant the same thing by both while you and I probably would mean something different by both. So it is not so much he is conflating two things so much as he is saying the same thing two ways, and one of those ways is not how we would use the phrase. The general message does not appear to me to be "all over the place" if you make that simple assumption based on context.

Wibbs wrote: »

His parting shot about letting a woman pay for the meal on a date an extension to the above

I post on another forum, or used to but have not had the time of late called City Data and that whole discussion comes up often there. That's the US of course not Ireland. But I was surprised how many men on those threads were simply hating the idea of letting a woman pay. They felt it was their role / duty / position. I cannot say how common that view is in Ireland. But anecdotally I have seen it. Not LOTS. But it certainly is still a mindset that is not dead.

So no do not see anything too bad in him saying that either.

Wibbs wrote: »

Feminism is a "trigger word"

To you. Not to me. I use the word like he uses the word, to mean the strive towards as much equality as is possible and meaningful in our modern world. And the demolition of nonsense and useless and outdated concepts of Gender Roles which are rarely applicable or relevant to us any more.

You might hate the word, or have a different definition and use of it that you hate. But I see nothing wrong with my understanding of the word, or in supporting what I think it means.

So no I see nothing wrong with the word in and of itself. Does not trigger me. But I do avoid it's use where possible if I think it triggers someone else like yourself. If a point can be made equally well (or better) without it, then I simply do not use it.

For example when I am demolition the outdated and unsubstantiated nonsense that a child "needs" or "deserves" both a mother and a father, I do not use the word feminism when describing why that is nonsense. But it is essentially the original meaning of the term I am pursuing when I am knocking that tripe down. Because it tells us that there are sole gender roles each must follow, or that there is something that one gender can bring to the process of parenting that is somehow precluded the other. And aside from their differing roles in reproduction I have yet to see ANYTHING that appears to be a relevant gender role in either gender.

Wibbs wrote: »

and yes he does claim that feminism is a therapy for young men.

I did not say he did not. What I said was that describing his position solely in that way is much too effete to capture the actual content of the position he described in that link. His entire position does not suggest that "their worries and stresses would somehow be alleviated" but that PARTICULAR worries and stresses.... ones based in a concept of a disparity between the sexes...... could be alleviated by working towards a society that has less disparity between the sexes, or divesting yourself of a belief in a disparity that exists only in your own head.

Ulysses Gaze

Deleted User wrote: »

He said a lad that came to him or some lads came to him and said "I have nothing to offer a woman... how am I supposed to provide for a woman?"..

His response was (remember this wasn't out of the blue, it's a response based on the above question):

"the fact of the matter is, that is a patriarchal attitude that is no longer relevant to us in the 21st century, neoliberalism has made it is such a way that if you were to go out and buy a house with a woman you must be equal, it's as simple as that. So if young men are carrying around this faulty view that they must provide for a woman? Forget about it. It can't happen. I would say to any young men out there.. feminism is not about females being powerful, it's about redressing an imbalance and equality, and [that] feminism is a very necessary thing for young men to have"

Pretty different to what you are saying he said now in fairness...

I'm not saying I agree with any of that, but yee are all misquoting him.

But Chambers does not differentiate between First and Second Wave Feminism that is for most of what you posted and the bat**** crazy third and fourth wave loons that are shouting online that cis gendered white men need to stop their mansplaining, check their privilege and shut up. That women are the oppressed and straight white men are the oppressors of all around them.

Those loons are the most visible feminists in the virtual ecosystem that young men inhabit now.

As Bill Maher said...what are poor working class white men supposed to do if their lives suck:

'Cut their dicks off and check their privilege?'

And my advice to young men? **** Feminism.

Look to improve yourself. Go to the gym. Read and educate yourself. Build your own interests and hobbies.
Doing this will build self-esteem and will ultimately make you more attractive to women.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah no SF, I do see what you're getting at and if anything resonates for someone in a positive way I say game ball.

I would still say we are talking about it a lot. I personally don't think we need to be talking about it more, we do need to be talking about it more intelligently and effectively. I have the vibe that currently it's more about about quantity over quality, never mind the quality, feel the width and more about various people and groups looking around for a handy bandwagon to jump onto.

Bang on actually, I'd agree with that. I like how he talks about some of the mental health stuff, and maybe he resonates with me because his experiences when he was young were somewhat similar to mine.

I would say his statement of "young men in Ireland need feminism" and following it up by the why's and how this would help them is stating that it would help them alleviate their worries and stresses. The apparently "need" feminism or they're kinda screwed.

It was in response to a lad that was saying "I have nothing to offer a woman... how am I supposed to provide for a woman?", so I think to a lad that thinks like that, feminism might change his viewpoint a little bit. Maybe not though.

This sentence right there is a way of thinking that makes a helluva difference and what marks you out from many, if not most. It's a remarkably rare sentiment to hear from anyone.

Ah we've spoken a few time down the years, we've both been on boards a long time and gone to the same beers too, it's all friendly discussion to me! I always enjoy the chats.

Personally speaking I have worked out that if I start from the basic position that I'm a thundering gobshite until proven otherwise it makes life go more smoothly for me and those around me.

I just assume I'm a thundering gobshite regardless, makes it all easier :pac: