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

nozzferrahhtoo

You would have to actually GIVE me an answer half the time before you can gauge my reaction to it. However if you explain your points I will do what I always do, either accept the point or rebut the point. If you do not explain something, or answer a question I directly ask you (which you have done numerous times now) then not so much.

And that goes both ways. If you point to something I said and claim I did not explain it well guess what I will do. Moan that you told me I did not explain it well? Not a bit of it. I will explain it better. Simple as. Try it sometime, it is quite gratifying.

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You would have to actually GIVE me an answer half the time before you can gauge my reaction to it. However if you explain your points I will do what I always do, either accept the point or rebut the point. If you do not explain something, or answer a question I directly ask you (which you have done numerous times now) then not so much.

And that goes both ways. If you point to something I said and claim I did not explain it well guess what I will do. Moan that you told me I did not explain it well? Not a bit of it. I will explain it better. Simple as. Try it sometime, it is quite gratifying.

Ah, more smug patronising comments. Do you really expect people to engage with you just talk down to them?

nozzferrahhtoo

You just decide things are smug to suit yourself though. I meant it genuinely. Explaining your point well, and taking the effort to do so, is a gratifying experience. The one liner dodges you have offered me in the last days on two threads.... not so much. I openly and heartily recommend you try it.

But you have chosen now to be petty and personal rather than deal with ANYTHING I actually said. So I will attempt to re-rail you attempted de-rail by merely repeating what I said about the link you offered:

The subtitle "On the dangers of pathologizing manhood" is exactly what I already covered by saying that is NOT what the term is meant to be doing.

If people are doing that, or using the term to do that, or both.... then absolutely they are on the wrong track and should be pulled up for that.

The premise of the article established in the opening however is to construct a false dichotomy between the lowest of the low male and those conforming to the authors notion (rather than the actual definition) of "Toxic Masculinity".

For example he writes "“toxic masculine” male phenotypes that correlate with testosterone". I do not think, for example, the definition I offered from google of the term has anything to do with testosterone at all. It has only to do with the expectations society has for what men are meant to do.

There is nothing WRONG with being socially dominant either. No one using the phrase should be suggesting there is, and I see nothing about the phrase that suggests there is either. Rather telling or compelling men to be that, whether they can do, or want to, or need to, or even care or not.......... is what is "toxic".

So the author, like yourself, is making the error of conflating the attributes themselves (few of which people are decrying specifically) with the effect of pushing those attributes on people merely by virtue of what sex they are.

Now do you want to address any of that substance, or will it be more dodge-athon and personal comments?

DickSwiveller Returns

There is nothing WRONG with being socially dominant either. No one using the phrase should be suggesting there is, and I see nothing about the phrase that suggests there is either. Rather telling or compelling men to be that, whether they can do, or want to, or need to, or even care or not.......... is what is "toxic".

Who is telling men this exactly? Why is it assumed that this is behavioural/environmental issue which needs to be tackled rather recognising that due to our biological make up coupled with how we evolved probably means we are in some way pre-conditioned to be this way. And like you said, there is nothing wrong with that.

I think it's a positive thing for the man himself and also for his partner. Men and women bring different things to a relationship (I don't think you agree with this) - and *are* fundamentally different, that to try and tackle so-called toxic masculinity in an attempt to create equality in a relationship situation doesn't make much sense. We aren't equal. Equal under the law, sure - but fundamentally both sexes bring different things to a relationship.

Wibbs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not think, for example, the definition I offered from google of the term has anything to do with testosterone at all. It has only to do with the expectations society has for what men are meant to do.

Which suggests you're more a Nurture rather than Nature advocate. That culture is what most influences traits and expectations. The Nurture/Nature debate is long in the tooth. Pre around the 1960's it was more about nature, if not exclusively, then when research showed a cultural aspect some decided to go the whole hog and claim nurture was all. The pendulum overswung the other way.

And on it goes today. In the imported from the Yanks* divisive politic of the present day, on matters to do with gender, broadly speaking the "Left" overwhelmingly cite nurture, the "Right" overwhelmingly cite nature as the primary influence. There can be overlap with both, when it suits. IE with the transexual debate that seems a la mode at present, you will see progressive folks claim that transsexuality is nature, yet at the same time view gender roles and traits as nurture. Does not compute. Similar can be seen with those on the "right".

Of course the reality and the observable and obvious reality at that is the nature/nurture thing is a) more complex than hackneyed easily swallowed answers and b) six of one, half dozen of the other. The facts are that there are brain structure, hormonal, developmental differences between the genders. Of course there exists degrees and overlaps, but some broad differences are observable. Testosterone does make changes in the body and mind and personality. Trans men who take hormone therapy report this across the board. They note extra aggression, more physical vigour, less variable emotional states and more calm, more confidence and less concern about group consensus, with a concomitant drop in what is perceived as group "bitchiness". And these are people who for the most part have spent their early lives and puberty exposed to female hormones and female gender expectations. Trans folks are a very interesting case study on how brain structure, uterine and pubescent hormone exposure can make for such a fundamental difference in traits. Culture goes hand in hand in that mix of course, but in the chicken and egg angle it does seem nature has the upper hand.

Current "feminism" takes that to one extreme. That the "feminine" is the better state and beyond reproach. That the "masculine" is either a problem, or oft something to be labeled and berated as wrong. The question I've asked repeatedly and with no answer is can anyone point out any trait seen as feminine that "feminists" see as wrong, or even questionable? Indeed when bad behaviour is acknowledged in some women it is inevitably blamed on "patriarchal systems of belief". Still men's fault.

*a tiny subset of same, a subset that is loud on social and mainstream media. Most Americans like anyone else are in a general state of WTF.

[Deleted User]

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Who is telling men this exactly?

Exactly? Well, Psychology today in the US is well populated by women who grew up through the period when feminism was extremely influential. If you actually look at the numbers of graduates (even in the last decade alone) in Psychology and other similar qualifications, females outnumber males by a large margin. In the States. Which is where a lot of the research on these things are taking place. [I haven't seen the figures for Ireland/Europe]

And then there's the females I mentioned previously who graduated from women's rights courses in the 80s/90s/etc who have gained positions of influence in areas where women are well represented already, and now, with quotas, stand to be well represented elsewhere. HR departments, Media, etc.

All different mediums to present the idea that males are to blame for the ills of society, and they can point to psychology as being there to prove it. After all, Psychology is "scientific".

If you look at the original definition of "toxic masuclinity" it was used in a very specific set of circumstances, within a particular field. In recent years, that definition has been broadened to include so much more.

Now, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. People seem to want there to be a central organisation of feminists who are "responsible" for what's happening... but there is a momentum to feminism, and the ideas that have come from feminism. This is why we see so many politicians or organisations taking their ideas on board, and running with them. People have been influenced directly or indirectly by feminism for 30+ years... and the effects are spreading rapidly especially now that Psychology has gained some amazing credibility (in spite of the lacklustre research methods, criticisms of research methods, assumptions or biases... etc).

Why is it assumed that this is behavioural/environmental issue which needs to be tackled rather recognising that due to our biological make up coupled with how we evolved probably means we are in some way pre-conditioned to be this way. And like you said, there is nothing wrong with that.

Because to suggest the same for women is to be sexist unless it relates to women being mothers. Any suggestion that women are pre-conditioned to behave certain ways is shot down as being unreasonable. There's a double standard in play here. And look at those conditions which are accepted (for now) as being pre-conditioned for males vs females. The male attributes tend to be negative or borderline negative depending on social pressure, whereas the attributes for females are positives, except where society is intolerant/uncaring/unsupportive of them.

Are there pre-conditioned attributes? I don't know, TBH. I think men and women lean towards certain behaviors, but I'm not sure how much of that is cultural rather than biological.

I think it's a positive thing for the man himself and also for his partner. Men and women bring different things to a relationship (I don't think you agree with this) - and *are* fundamentally different, that to try and tackle so-called toxic masculinity in an attempt to create equality in a relationship situation doesn't make much sense. We aren't equal. Equal under the law, sure - but fundamentally both sexes bring different things to a relationship.

Except this is where individuality comes into play. I know relationships where the traditional roles and behaviors are reversed. And they're not rare either.

There is too much generalisation when it comes to how people interact with each other. I'm guilty of doing it myself. The problem is when it becomes official policy to do so, and to promote a society that does the same. And when it puts the pressure on one party of the relationship based solely on their gender.

I'm not a typical male. The characteristics/behavior types that are normally attributed to males, wouldn't be applied to me... because I have lived a different life. My personality is different than most guys I know. However, the society that we are encouraging will simply look at my gender and assume my behaviors, and judge me not on my life, but on the perception of society on my gender.

The funny thing is that while teaching at universities in China, we would often talk about individualism vs collectivism. China being a very traditional collectivist society where there are expected behaviors for both genders. And per the books, and per the students beliefs, Westerners would be individualistic. That we placed so much importance on individual freedom and the value of the individual. Since I've returned to Ireland this year, I've noticed these initiatives, and the changes regarding the perception of males to be removing that value on individuals. We are responsible for our gender. We are judged by our gender. Men are collectively responsible. We are being put into a very set box of conditions. Nice, how women are being given complete freedom at the same time...

Crazy, isn't it?

DickSwiveller Returns

Can I just say that the last two posts by Wibbs and Klaz are really excellent and very interesting.

[Deleted User]

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Can I just say that the last two posts by Wibbs and Klaz are really excellent and very interesting.

Agreed. I enjoy both of their posts very much, both have an engaging writing style but if I see Men™ or Women™ written again I'm gonna pull my own Face™ off.

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Which suggests you're more a Nurture rather than Nature advocate.

I identify as neither to be honest. I am not really into the need to label peoples position to discuss the label rather than what the individual says. IT is just one step away from the all new "So what you are saying is...." meme that I have enjoyed seeing arise of late.

But this "What you said remindsme of this label, so here is what I Think of that label....." move in discussion is not one I use or respond to. If you want to respond to what I said do (which I am not sure you do given the number of posts directly to you you have now ignored).... if you want to leap from my post to a label you want to discuss in parallel, do.... but I will not jump in the rabbit hole with you I am afraid.

Wibbs wrote: »

Current "feminism" takes that to one extreme.

Then take it up with "current feminism". Once again I have to point out to you that my discussion with you since the first response was about Blindboy and his comment, and your description of his comment. The ONLY definition of feminism relevant to parsing his point therefore, is his one. Which, usefully, he included WITHIN the point (which is why I said earlier it is a useful example on how to make a point well).

So like above AGAIN I feel you are rabbit holing in that you are moving away from what either I, or Blindboy, actually said by the (all too common on modern forums) move of tangenting into a label of your own choosing and lambasting that label instead. Without, at any point, actually responding to the source comments that the response is making out it is connected to.

But as I said to link back to "Toxic Masculinity" the understanding I have of the term is NOT AT ALL.....

Wibbs wrote: »

That the "feminine" is the better state and beyond reproach. That the "masculine" is either a problem, or oft something to be labeled and berated as wrong.

..... that masculinity is the problem or is "wrong". But that the expectations that any given male or group of males should be expected to conform to some definition of what it means to be masculine IS. Or that some of the things we traditionally associated with being masculine.......... and the one most people use as an example here is the expression of emotions especially that of a male being seen to cry for example or seek help with mental health issues as another example............... can be monumentally harmful. ANYONE with a concept, masculinty or anything else........ that any human at all should curtail the expression of healthy and useful emotions is simply wrong and needs to be resisted.

Wibbs wrote: »

The question I've asked repeatedly and with no answer is can anyone point out any trait seen as feminine that "feminists" see as wrong, or even questionable?

Well under my own (similar to Blindboys) definition of the word I would be a "feminist". So I guess I can answer your question directly and as such you will never be able to claim you asked the question with no answer.

As I said above my understanding of toxic masculinity includes the idea men should not be expressing certain emotions or be seen to cry. They should be seen to be dominant maybe, stand up and fight their corner, push back, stoic. All of that. I would say therefore that if the OPPOSITE is associated with feminity therefore then that is also toxic.

That is if we expect women to show emotions they do not want to, to back down and cry when confronted, to not stand up and be dominant or confrontational or fight their corner, to never be stoic, to always be nurturing.... then again this is toxic.

TOXIC here is any expectation that a person should or should not act in a certain way, achieve or not achieve certain goals, make or not make certain choices........... because of the arbitrary group they happen to be part of. And I would validly therefore talk of toxic masculinity, toxic feminity, toxic Zionism, toxic Blackness, toxic Management, toxic anything that either pushes standards on someone they do not want, or makes anyone feel bad hurt or inferior if they cant reach them.

So put it this way. The reason you have not gotten an answer (you claim) to the question is the question is poorly formulated and too effette to get to the point of this "toxic" thing. Being that we do not in and of itself see ANY trait masculine or feminine as wrong or toxic.

What is wrong and toxic is the expectation, externally to an individual or group, or internally to that indivdual or group, that they should conform to each attribute. That merely by virtue of being male or female they are expected to fit this mould. And they are somehow "lesser" if they do not.

So for this reason you will by definition maybe NEVER get "any trait seen as feminine that "feminists" see as wrong" because it is not the traits themselves that are the issue, but what we do with them.

I hope that does clear it up a little.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Who is telling men this exactly?

Irrelevant. I was just discussing the meaning of the term. And the meaning I found was that it refers to pushing such gender roles on to people. That is what the word MEANS regardless of who, if anyone, is actually doing it or not.

So who is doing it, individuals or society, has nothing to do with the point(s) I have been making.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

we are in some way pre-conditioned to be this way.

Well what is wrong with that is many many people are not pre conditioned to be that way. And one thing we appear to want to resist in this world is the notion that because someone is male they must be some way, or because someone is black they must be another way, or because someone is homosexual they must be another way.

THAT appears to be the focus of much of the discourse on subjects like this. That A) Assumptions that people are a certain way because they fit into some arbitrary grouping is harmful and

Feelings people may have they should be a certain way when they are not, because of their grouping, brings pain and discomfort into their lives that is entirely needless.

Most of us seem to want to reduce pain and suffering in the world. I would say a prime target for that is NEEDLESS pain and suffering that there is no justifiable reason for having in the first place. Would you not?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Men and women bring different things to a relationship (I don't think you agree with this)

No I do not agree with it. Mostly because it is consistently unsubstantiated nonsense that also goes against everything I have seen and experienced in the world. And there have been many places where I have called for it to be substantiated, and the people I was talking with either could not do it, ran away, or got personally agressive and angry for merely having been asked.

The prime example of this is the subject of children "deserving" or "needing" or "being more ideal if they have" both a mother and a father. There simply is NO evidence for this at all. Quite the opposite. Studies of children with homosexual parents for example not only failed to show them fare any worse, some of them even indicated them faring BETTER.

I think INDIVIDUALS brings different things to the relationship. No one brings anything individual merely by virtue of their being male or female. And two homosexual men are every bit as likely to bring individuals things to their relationship as two heterosexal people for example.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

We aren't equal.

No one is claiming we are, that is the point. The opposite is what we claim. We are ALL different. And more and more often we are realizing that the differences are individual rather than due to some arbitrary grouping we happen to be part of.

7aubzxk43m2sni

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The prime example of this is the subject of children "deserving" or "needing" or "being more ideal if they have" both a mother and a father. There simply is NO evidence for this at all. Quite the opposite. Studies of children with homosexual parents for example not only failed to show them fare any worse, some of them even indicated them faring BETTER.

I think INDIVIDUALS brings different things to the relationship. No one brings anything individual merely by virtue of their being male or female. And two homosexual men are every bit as likely to bring individuals things to their relationship as two heterosexal people for example.

Source please?

I'd be of the opinion that homosexual parents can do a fine job of raising a child, but if you took two couples, one hetero sexual and one homosexual, and all things were equal except their sexuality, the child would have a healthier upbringing in the heterosexual household, due to the involvement of both sexes in their childhood.

7aubzxk43m2sni

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well under my own (similar to Blindboys) definition of the word I would be a "feminist". So I guess I can answer your question directly and as such you will never be able to claim you asked the question with no answer.

As I said above my understanding of toxic masculinity includes the idea men should not be expressing certain emotions or be seen to cry. They should be seen to be dominant maybe, stand up and fight their corner, push back, stoic. All of that. I would say therefore that if the OPPOSITE is associated with feminity therefore then that is also toxic.

That is if we expect women to show emotions they do not want to, to back down and cry when confronted, to not stand up and be dominant or confrontational or fight their corner, to never be stoic, to always be nurturing.... then again this is toxic.

TOXIC here is any expectation that a person should or should not act in a certain way, achieve or not achieve certain goals, make or not make certain choices........... because of the arbitrary group they happen to be part of. And I would validly therefore talk of toxic masculinity, toxic feminity, toxic Zionism, toxic Blackness, toxic Management, toxic anything that either pushes standards on someone they do not want, or makes anyone feel bad hurt or inferior if they cant reach them.

...

What is wrong and toxic is the expectation, externally to an individual or group, or internally to that indivdual or group, that they should conform to each attribute. That merely by virtue of being male or female they are expected to fit this mould. And they are somehow "lesser" if they do not.

...

So for this reason you will by definition maybe NEVER get "any trait seen as feminine that "feminists" see as wrong" because it is not the traits themselves that are the issue, but what we do with them.

I hope that does clear it up a little.

Sorry but this confuses me further.

If it is the expectation that is toxic, why is the term 'toxic masculinity', when expectation has nothing to do with masculinity in the slightest? Expectation is expectation, it's neither feminine nor masculine.

Keepaneye

Cienciano wrote: »

I listened to the live Louise O'Neill podcast. No clue about LON except she'd a subject of debate on AH threads I never go into. Podcast was good, LON was funny, interesting and a good talker. A good live podcast imho.

She's about as funny as cancer.

The phenomenon of men going along with this feminist tripe is quite a sad.

[Deleted User]

Kace Juicy Spaghetti wrote: »

Source please?

I'd be of the opinion that homosexual parents can do a fine job of raising a child, but if you took two couples, one hetero sexual and one homosexual, and all things were equal except their sexuality, the child would have a healthier upbringing in the heterosexual household, due to the involvement of both sexes in their childhood.

Which means you're taking away their individuality... You're seeking to use an example that simply doesn't exist in the real world. The personalities, emotional states, their experience as children (themselves), as teens, their respect (or lack of) their partners, etc. All these things are important in the raising of children.

You might as well be arguing about using robots with no personality programmed into them, to act as parents as a comparison.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kace Juicy Spaghetti wrote: »

Source please?

I'd be of the opinion that homosexual parents can do a fine job of raising a child, but if you took two couples, one hetero sexual and one homosexual, and all things were equal except their sexuality, the child would have a healthier upbringing in the heterosexual household, due to the involvement of both sexes in their childhood.

I would say the same to you of your opinion of course. The assertion contained within it is one we could use sources for. Or something to support it. I see no reason to expect all things being equal that they would necessarily do better or worse, merely by virtue of the genders.

Not that "all things being equal" happens in our world anyway.

So..... source please?

However to answer yours here is a good start, and if you want to discuss it further we can. I choose the links below because they name the studies which you can then also go read (I would in your place, never just take the media articles word for it, read the papers too).

Here is a media article on the subject... https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/23/children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows

Here is an informative blog on the subject....
https://www.livestrong.com/article/156339-gay-parents-effects-on-children/

Of course take care if reading your own studies on this subject too however. There are studies that contrive to ignore important details when comparing children of one type with children of another. But you said it well yourself "and all things were equal except their sexuality"!! So I think you are already aware of that.

Children being brought up by homosexual parents for example are often, but not always, children of broken homes. That is one of their parents is the product of a divorce or split. And that does affect children. And therefore that has to be accounted for. CAUTION with studies that contrive not to!

Kace Juicy Spaghetti wrote: »

Sorry but this confuses me further.

If it is the expectation that is toxic, why is the term 'toxic masculinity', when expectation has nothing to do with masculinity in the slightest? Expectation is expectation, it's neither feminine nor masculine.

I am going to give you a simple I do not know on that one. I am discussing what my understanding of the meaning of the term actually is. Why, when or how the term itself was chosen..... I honestly could not tell you.

Like you, I suspect they could have done better. I am in no way defending the term itself or it's etymology. Just discussing what we think it means.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Can you imagine if posh boy plastic bag man came face to face with Wayne Dundon back in 2010 or so.

Can you imagine him telling that fella that he's in need of consent classes?

Keepaneye

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Can you imagine if posh boy plastic bag man came face to face with Wayne Dundon back in 2010 or so.

Can you imagine him telling that fella that he's in need of consent classes?

That's the thing. If confronted in the real world these people shrink down and cower away from a good debate because when confronted with actual scientific facts, they get flustered ala Cathy Newman.

7aubzxk43m2sni

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would say the same to you of your opinion of course. The assertion contained within it is one we could use sources for. Or something to support it. I see no reason to expect all things being equal that they would necessarily do better or worse, merely by virtue of the genders.

Not that "all things being equal" happens in our world anyway.

So..... source please?

Fair enough, I will do some reading and come back to you if I find anything that supports my claim.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However to answer yours here is a good start, and if you want to discuss it further we can. I choose the links below because they name the studies which you can then also go read (I would in your place, never just take the media articles word for it, read the papers too).

Here is a media article on the subject... https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/oct/23/children-raised-by-same-sex-parents-do-as-well-as-their-peers-study-shows

Here is an informative blog on the subject....
https://www.livestrong.com/article/156339-gay-parents-effects-on-children/

Of course take care if reading your own studies on this subject too however. There are studies that contrive to ignore important details when comparing children of one type with children of another. But you said it well yourself "and all things were equal except their sexuality"!! So I think you are already aware of that.

Children being brought up by homosexual parents for example are often, but not always, children of broken homes. That is one of their parents is the product of a divorce or split. And that does affect children. And therefore that has to be accounted for. CAUTION with studies that contrive not to!

Thanks for the links. I'll definitely give them a read.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am going to give you a simple I do not know on that one. I am discussing what my understanding of the meaning of the term actually is. Why, when or how the term itself was chosen..... I honestly could not tell you.

Like you, I suspect they could have done better. I am in no way defending the term itself or it's etymology. Just discussing what we think it means.

Ok that's fair, cheers.

Brian?

Kace Juicy Spaghetti wrote: »

Source please?

I'd be of the opinion that homosexual parents can do a fine job of raising a child, but if you took two couples, one hetero sexual and one homosexual, and all things were equal except their sexuality, the child would have a healthier upbringing in the heterosexual household, due to the involvement of both sexes in their childhood.

Based on what evidence?

Brian?

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Can you imagine if posh boy plastic bag man came face to face with Wayne Dundon back in 2010 or so.

Can you imagine him telling that fella that he's in need of consent classes?

How does that make his opinions more or less valid?

nozzferrahhtoo

Kace Juicy Spaghetti wrote: »

Fair enough, I will do some reading and come back to you if I find anything that supports my claim.

IF it helps, I think I know what would help support the claim. Maybe it is not the approach you would take but if I was trying to prove your assertion then this is how I would do it in your place.

Actually it is quite a simple pair of algorithms.....

The first.....

1) Work out what your measurement standards are for comparison first. There are differences of opinion on this. Some people compare the income the children end up with, job and social class. Some people compare success academically. Some people compare statistics on rates the children turned to crime, marital break down, drug use, or medical and mental issues. And so on.

2) Check for differences in these between the groups. In this way you could check if the abscence of one gender correlates with a variance in one of those statistics. Then you could work on establishing a causal link between the two.

3) Cation however as I said before, that if you choose a measure that already correlates with something the children have experienced...... like marital breakdown with crime and mental health issues for example.... you would have to be seen to normalise for this in your workings.

The second.......

1) List all the things you believe are required for the happy and successful upbringing of a child. Security. Love. Affection. Education. Feeding. Consistency. Stability. A home. Empathy. And so on. You can add your own.

2) Show which of those, if any, a person is precluded from offering or offering ideally...... based on their gender. Then you would have a valid argument that the absence of that gender leads to the absence of that attribute..... or the presence of that gender guarentees it or makes it massively more likely to be there.............. and therefore a heterosexual partnership would be more "ideal".

That is where I would start, if I was in your position or playing devils advocate of your position. If I could convincingly do either of those things, I would have at least the first substantiation for your claim.

smurgen

He was on Tommy Tiernan last night.I must say i do like that chap but he's going down a stupid worm hole with this SJW stuff.he reminds me of a friend of mine.very bright and hilarious, but the intelligence is not really real world applicable.this friend of mine also gets fixated on stupid topics and we just have to tell him relax.i feel like blindboy needs someone to tell him calm down.

Wibbs

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I hope that does clear it up a little.

Not really, beyond your love for the words "parse" and "effete" and long back and forth posts that wrap themselves in knots not really going anywhere. Your answer is vague and isn't an answer.

Though you're right in one sense when you said this: So for this reason you will by definition maybe NEVER get "any trait seen as feminine that "feminists" see as wrong" but for different reasons than you seem to believe. In current "feminism" traits regarded as feminine are rarely if ever pointed at and certainly not labeled "toxic". This wasn't always the case with earlier waves of the movement. What has changed is the elevation of victimhood as a positive(not just in feminism. It's all over the place), the woman as oppressed and the man as oppressor. And the oppressed and any traits attached can't be seen to be at fault in that kinda paradigm. The notion of "victim blaming" would be brought to bear in short order.

Even when men are invited cap in hand into the victimhood tent it's because of patriarchal thinking and they have to acknowledge that to get past the flap. Women blameless, men still at fault. So nope my question remains, as does my challenge to find any tenet in feminism that goes against the maxim that women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame. The blame always goes entirely one way.

Brian? wrote:

Based on what evidence?

Indeed. What evidence there is suggests no differences in outcome for kids regardless of the sexuality of their parents. As noted, in some it shows a positive trend. This can be explained by the fact that in such cases that are usually adoptive kids gay parents have to go through more hoops to adopt and are higher on the socioeconomic scale on average compared to perspective parents who are straight. Not a surprise for a difference there as socioeconomic status is a consistent positive in raising kids. It's one reason why single parent families often score lower for outcome. It's less about parenting and more about a higher percentage of lower socioeconomic parents in such setups.

nozzferrahhtoo

Wibbs wrote: »

Not really, beyond your love for the words "parse" and "effete" and long back and forth posts that wrap themselves in knots not really going anywhere. Your answer is vague and isn't an answer.

Except it is and your dodging feigned lack of understanding of them, beyond your love for picking pointlessly on single words a person happened to use, is not likely to define them.

The answer could not be clearer really. You are asking what traits a particular group are considering bad. And you are asking this in the context of a discussion of the term "toxic masculinity".

And my response to it is clear, that the reason you are not getting answered with a list of such traits is that the question itself misses the point that it is not the traits themselves that are "good" or "bad", but how pressured or expected an individual group is to conform to them or measure their worth by them.

Wibbs wrote: »

In current "feminism"

And as I said if you want to take an issue up with "current feminists" as you define them, then find one of them and do so. But talking to me, asking me questions, that you want THEM to answer is to stack the deck and not just move the goal posts, but go off and play a different game leaving me behind on the pitch playing mine.

I have told you what my understanding of "feminism" is, and how I see myself as a feminist thus defined. And I have given MY answer to the question you asked. Someone elses answer you will have to get from someone else. But part of the reason "feminists" are not answering your question is I have yet to find anyone who stands up and identifies by YOUR personal definition of what a "feminist" is. So again the deck is stacked, you will continue (to pretend) not to have a "feminist" answer your question because no one actually is a "feminist" by your definition of it. So there is no one TO answer it.

Again however my understanding of the use of the phrase, as with the definitions I found when I googled it, is that NO trait is toxic. But the idea someone should conform to a trait due to an arbitrary grouping they happen to be part of..... is. And as such the answer to your question as asked is ALL of them or NONE of them (either answer works).

You clearly have an issue with what you perceive feminism to be, on this and many other threads. But it has little to nothing to do with the points I am making since our conversation began. You are by your own admission triggered by the mere word. And your responses appear to be more directed at that, than anything I am saying. Which, with the application of a little self awareness.... should concern you.

What further worries me is that the moment you strip away the word that triggers you, we appear to disagree on next to nothing. I SUSPECT you agree with me, for example, that any suffering someone suffers due to expectations put on them due to an arbitrary grouping they are part of.... is a bad thing. Just like I wholly agree with YOU that this modern move towards playing the victim is a horror move and one to be resisted at every turn.

Just like some people joke the US and UK are two countries divided by a common language...... I would say anything up to 90% of our positions on many matters on this thread are two people divided by a common word.

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. What evidence there is suggests no differences in outcome for kids regardless of the sexuality of their parents. As noted, in some it shows a positive trend. This can be explained by the fact that in such cases that are usually adoptive kids gay parents have to go through more hoops to adopt and are higher on the socioeconomic scale on average compared to perspective parents who are straight.

Another interesting statistic I read however is similar but slightly opposite. Homosexual couples are apparently more likely to adopt "problem kids".

The phrase problem kids includes, but is not defined by, what it sounds like. It sounds like kids with emotional or behavioural difficulties. They are indeed included in it.

But apparently it also means kids that are just a problem to place in families. Perhaps they are too old, as people tend to like to adopt young. Or perhaps they are the wrong race, homosexuals being more inclined to adopt outside their race.

Anyway the point is.... the statistics show that children of homosexual parents fare just as well (sometimes better) DESPITE having adopted children that statistically could be expected to skew those statistics AGAINST their favor. Problem kids. Older kids. Mixed Race families. All the things you might expect to ultimately generate negative statistics.

Which I just find interesting.

DickSwiveller Returns

If children of same sex parents had worse outcomes I wonder how willing the researchers would be to publish such findings. Can you imagine the backlash from the LGBT lobby? Are these researchers completely balanced, I wonder?

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

If children of same sex parents had worse outcomes I wonder how willing the researchers would be to publish such findings. Can you imagine the backlash from the LGBT lobby? Are these researchers completely balanced, I wonder?

Ah when people can not find evidence for their positions a common move is to invent a conspiracy narrative that seeks to explain that the relevant findings have simply been buried.

But to torpedo that narrative negative studies and reports and statistics HAVE been published. Just not many of them, and many of them have been peer reviewed and found very flawed. For example, as I said, by not at all normalizing for issues we EXPECT many children in such households to have (such as being involved in a divorce.

So your narrative does not hold. People ARE willing to and HAVE published findings that are negative. And the only "backlash" they get is the SAME "backlash" they get when positive. In that they get peer reviewed and checked.

I never consider researchers to be completely balanced. They are human. The methodologies of peer review and science however ARE balanced. Whcih is why we have them. To mitigate the influence of human bias and emotion.

Ash.J.Williams

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Can you imagine if posh boy plastic bag man came face to face with Wayne Dundon back in 2010 or so.

Can you imagine him telling that fella that he's in need of consent classes?

You could say that about anybody

DickSwiveller Returns

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ah when people can not find evidence for their positions a common move is to invent a conspiracy narrative that seeks to explain that the relevant findings have simply been buried.

What position? I couldn't care less about the issue.

Well, just reading about it on Wikipedia one Professor criticizedmost of the studies, saying it was driven more by ideology than by objective science. I'm sure it's possible.

nozzferrahhtoo

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

What position? I couldn't care less about the issue.

It was a general statement not localized solely to you. Not EVERY response to your posts is someone rebutting you. Quite often people reply to posts to make a further point. Stop seeing every reply as an affront.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Well, just reading about it on Wikipedia one Professor criticizedmost of the studies, saying it was driven more by ideology than by objective science. I'm sure it's possible.

One person making blanket criticisms is hardly new. We have it here on boards even where one user who got uppity that he could not find any evidence that it is "ideal" that a child have a father and a mother........... dismissed all the studies AGAINST his position with a one liner.

Basically he said (paraphrase but close to original) that homosexual parenting is a liberal lifestyle, academics are liberals, so of course academia is going to publishing findings supporting liberal lifestyles.

The most egregious, but comical and transparently desperate, dodge I have seen in all my years on boards it was. Don't like the findings? Lambast the entire academic enterprise. Funny stuff.

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

If children of same sex parents had worse outcomes I wonder how willing the researchers would be to publish such findings. Can you imagine the backlash from the LGBT lobby? Are these researchers completely balanced, I wonder?

Or maybe the evidence simply doesn't exist. Have you wondered about that?

As Wibbs points out, socio economic class is a more reliable predictor of outcome than the gender of parents.