Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Normally I couldn't be arsed with your particular debating style, but fcuk it I'm in pre drinking downtime so need to flush the braincells in preparation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

beyond your love for picking pointlessly on single words a person happened to use, is not likely to define them.

Christ.

and you go on to suggest my self awareness needs a rethink?

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.

Which does not answer the question. What feminine traits are regarded as toxic by feminism? What masculine traits are regarded as positives? Going on about conformity is you dodging the point.

As is this:

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 avoiding the question(s). Again point me to any mainstream feminist doctrine that doesn't paint women as agentless victims and men/the patriarchy as the oppressor. For clarity: Im not asking for your a la carte when it suits to avoid the point interpretation of 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.

Masculinity: a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with men. By definition when someone adds toxic in front of that it rates certain traits associated with masculinity as toxic. There is no female equivalent, though neurosis would be good one. Though as I've noted before and funny enough this is one phrase in origin that can't be laid at the feet of Feminism. They nicked it later on. It actually originated with a men's group back in the 70's, whose name thankfully escapes. Basically they were the original men crying and holding hands around campfires in forests banging drums. IE. hippies. And what should any sensible person do when confronted by hippies chanting in shrubbery?

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.

Yes. And No. I don't like to see anyone suffering, but I don't see men and women as "arbitrary groupings" either.

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.

We agree there at least. It's everywhere. Feminism positively drips with it and is a bloody charm for the trend, but so is every identity politic and hard felt done by group out there. Left, Right, whatever. Lefties see oppression and oppressors everywhere. Righties ditto. Men's rights types have caught the same disease, and rather than show up much of the feminist doctrine as bollocks and then ignore, or better yet fight said bollocks wherever it is to be found, too often they try to enter the same Victimhood Olympics Race.

Dannyriver wrote: »

There is nothing about mental health that he speaks about that isn t based in solid scientific evidence. Can you name which aspect of his opinions you think are not based on research?

Actually much of psychology is up in the air as far as hard data goes. It can be quite the "soft" science particularly by the time it hits the mainstream and it suffers from fashions that come and go. Remember "mindfulness"? That was a recent cure all, some even pushing it to be made a school subject. Then further research showed a strong tendency in gender differences and outcomes from the practice. In essence it was generally helpful for women, less so for men and could actually exacerbate problems in some.

Patriarchy is a strong factor in male mental illness? Great, only that mental illness in men(and women) has and is going up, not down, yet society has become far less patriarchal in its thinking over the same time period. Indeed on the subject of mental health and psychology: we've never had so much emphasis, understanding and access to therapies regarding mental health, yet mental illnesses in men and women are on the increase. And no, the "it wasn't diagnosed in the past" doesn't quite fit either. Take one demographic; middle aged men. A generation ago your average 40 year old western man was one of the least likely to present with mental illnesses, the least likely to turn to suicide and very low down on overall death rates(deaths tended to cluster in younger men and the elderly). Today, they are one of the most likely groups to die by their own hands and their death rates have gone up. Even if every single death by suicide in say 1970 of 40 year old males was hidden it wouldn't explain the overall jump in rates today.

Now somebody could have a brain fart, equate the rise of women's equality with this trend over the same time period and come to the conclusion that Feminism is to blame!!!!, but they'd be a 24 karat moron of the highest quality. There could be a case to answer in how roles have shifted as being one factor alright, but picking a buzzword like feminism or patriarchy and laying all the blame there like this BlindBoy character did is again the easy answer of the moronic, and I would suggest unhelpful.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually much of psychology is up in the air as far as hard data goes. It can be quite the "soft" science particularly by the time it hits the mainstream and it suffers from fashions that come and go. Remember "mindfulness"? That was a recent cure all, some even pushing it to be made a school subject. Then further research showed a strong tendency in gender differences and outcomes from the practice. In essence it was generally helpful for women, less so for men and could actually exacerbate problems in some.

Patriarchy is a strong factor in male mental illness? Great, only that mental illness in men(and women) has and is going up, not down, yet society has become far less patriarchal in its thinking over the same time period. Indeed on the subject of mental health and psychology: we've never had so much emphasis, understanding and access to therapies regarding mental health, yet mental illnesses in men and women are on the increase. And no, the "it wasn't diagnosed in the past" doesn't quite fit either. Take one demographic; middle aged men. A generation ago your average 40 year old western man was one of the least likely to present with mental illnesses, the least likely to turn to suicide and very low down on overall death rates(deaths tended to cluster in younger men and the elderly). Today, they are one of the most likely groups to die by their own hands and their death rates have gone up. Even if every single death by suicide in say 1970 of 40 year old males was hidden it wouldn't explain the overall jump in rates today.

Now somebody could have a brain fart, equate the rise of women's equality with this trend over the same time period and come to the conclusion that Feminism is to blame!!!!, but they'd be a 24 karat moron of the highest quality. There could be a case to answer in how roles have shifted as being one factor alright, but picking a buzzword like feminism or patriarchy and laying all the blame there like this BlindBoy character did is again the easy answer of the moronic, and I would suggest unhelpful.

Could it be that the deaths weren't reported as suicides. Very common to brush it under the carpet.

Deleted User wrote: »

Only if you believe that such studies are the only form of evidence... Which gives Psychology an even greater degree of credibility than is warranted.

You've said the word evidence, but what evidence is there really?

I am certainly open to other forms of evidence if people want to present some and explain how and why it is evidence. What unfortunately happens to me is that people like to talk about "evidence" itself and never seem to get to offering it.

But it would not be for me to tell them what the evidence is. Their claims means it is their onus to offer the evidence or find out what it is.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because religious, or traditional focus groups in the US are going to very interested in showing that the Male/Female group is better for parenting. Lesbian or gay focus groups are going to want to show that they are the better option, and if not the best, then more than acceptable. The focus stops being about actual parenting, and becomes about the issue. Gender, Sexuality, etc.

Don't care what their focus or bias is to be honest.I just care that when they present a study that their methodology is sound. But we are talking in vague meta terms here. So unless I see such a study I can not really be sure what you are talking about. It is a bit more of the talking about evidence, without offering any to consider thing.

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a decided lack of studies about female led violence in our society. Oh, there are some but in comparison with the amount of studies about male led violence.... nope. Not even close.

And I offered reasons already as to why that might be. And I think the more we foster an environment where such men can come forward without fears of derision or anything else, the more likely we are to study them.

But it is a common problem. For example on another thread as I said I discussed "normal" pedophiles. That is pedophiles who have never and will never abuse anyone. We really do need to study them. But we do not know who they are. Hell we can not even estimate how many there are without getting wildly different estimates.

So until such time as they are coming forward and we can study them, we can not study them. And it is only in recent times I suspect we are even able to consider this for men who have been abused emotionally or physically in relationships. We need to talk to more of them, but we need to see more of them first. And yes, we do need to do the studies you have looked for and not found.

Deleted User wrote: »

Do we? How do we know?

How do we know there are problems with funding and publication? Well for one there have been studies done on publication bias. For example quite often when a claim is published, the counter claims to it do not get published in the same journal, if at all. Sometimes reports are shelved when their results seem insignificant. We havestudied this. Ben Goldacre has some great figures and comments on the matter.

What he and others have tried to do is set up a formal procedure where once a study is started, the study MUST be published to a central database regardless of the results and the completion level. Studies should not be left on shelves or in drawers.

The levels of identification with, and lengths some people are willing to go to to defend him, essentially a c list celebrity, are remarkable..

Was 'Horse outside' one of those life changing, era defining records for ye or what's the craic?..

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

The levels of identification with, and lengths some people are willing to go to to defend him, essentially a c list celebrity, are remarkable..

Was 'Horse outside' one of those life changing, era defining records for ye or what's the craic?..

He is just another one of those "media personalities"/charlatans that we are exposed to all the time...it is a little infuriating living on a small island some times..

One of the many Irish conundrums I find is how egotistical our talentless people can be...verses how grounded our actually talented people are!

Wibbs wrote: »

Normally I couldn't be arsed with your particular debating style, but fcuk it I'm in pre drinking downtime so need to flush the braincells in preparation.

Well yes, we have seen you dodge a few of my posts entirely already. But "your particular debating style" says nothing. What style is that? All I see really is you dodging posts and points, dropping in and out of conversations as it suits you without actually engaging or going to the mat, especially when your points are rebutted.

Wibbs wrote: »

Christ. and you go on to suggest my self awareness needs a rethink?

Absolutely! I do. But here again, just like "your particular debating style" comment about, you are moving to make comments that SUGGEST something is wrong with what I said or say, without actually saying what IS wrong. Which is pretty weak. You seem to think that if you say something in a derisory enough tone, it will just seem like the thing you said it about was derided without actually having said anything about it. So it really your own debating style that could do with work here not mind, but flushing brain cells is a good description of it because you appear to only be offering the dead useless ones to the output here.

Wibbs wrote: »

Which does not answer the question. What feminine traits are regarded as toxic by feminism?

Which as I said is not going to be answered because that is not what the phrase "Toxic Masculinity" means and so it is not likely to be what the phrase "toxic feminiity" means either.

But I did answer the question, you just do not want to acknowledge, accept, or rebut the answer given. The answer is and was that ANY trait is, the moment someone expects someone to conform to that trait, or judges them (or themselves) in light of that trait PURELY by virtue of what arbitrary grouping they happen to be part of.

So pick ANY trait you associate with "feminine" and that could be your answer. Just like you can pick ANY trait you associate with "masculine" and do the same thing.

Wibbs wrote: »

What masculine traits are regarded as positives? Going on about conformity is you dodging the point.

No, it is not. It is MAKING The point. Making my point is not dodging the point. At least try to make sense here if you would. Sheesh.

What I am saying here is that there IS no positive masculine traits. Or negative ones. There IS no positive feminine traits or negative ones. Just like there IS no positive emotions or negative ones. It is solely what we DO with those traits and emotions that defines what is positive and negative. Any masculine trait can be either.

Personally I go further and I question the idea of a masculine or feminine trait in the first place. Go look for the threads on boards where people talk about what makes a good man or a gentleman for example. I have seen and posted on a few of those. And EVERY trait listed on those threads so far, that I have seen, can equally apply to women. And threads vice versa. I have yet to see a single trait I would consider feminie and masculine really.

But again (and again and again and again if you want, I can go as long as you want me to when you reply to me or not) the "toxicity" does not refer to the trait itself. But to people who do not have those traits feeling, being made feel, or being measured by conformity to it or them.

Wibbs wrote: »

Again avoiding the question(s).

Yes, you are, that was my point. I started this conversation with you, as I keep reminding you but you ignore me, by discussing nothing more than YOUR description of Blindboys comment on feminism for lads which you described in pretty disingenuous terms. So we were discussing his point and then yuo went off on YOUR definition of feminism. Thus, as you say here, you started avoiding and dodging, and have been ever since.

What I am saying is that to stop dodging as you are, you need to drop YOUR definition, and YOUR emotional issues with the word "feminism" and consider nothing more than what HE means by it. Because only and solely what HE means by it will have you correctly parse his point.

The reason you are avoiding and dodging and refusing to do this is pretty obvious. BEcause the moment you do so, you will be unable to defend your original derisory description of his point and position in the video clip in question because OTHER Than you distortion and hatred of the word "feminism" you have been, and continue to be, unable to fault his point.

So yes again avoiding the issue, and I trust again you will continue to do so.

Wibbs wrote: »

Masculinity: a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with men. By definition when someone adds toxic in front of that it rates certain traits associated with masculinity as toxic.

By YOUR definition, but I have read no linguistic text on the functions and structures of the English language that suggests that is anything but entirely made up by you. You are trying to linguistically redefine the word to mean what you want it to mean, so you can attack that. Just like you do with "feminism". But it simply does not mean what you want it to mean and rather than simply make stuff up like you do here, I cited directly definitions of it that I looked up. You, have not. You just give YOUR definition of it. Which is fine.
But just like with blind boys definition of feminism I will be judging people and their positions by THEIR understanding of the phrase not yours.

Again here the definitions from the net, which do not match yours....

"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."

You see nothing there suggesting that any masculine trait is harmful or toxic. Lets try another one, this from a feminist wiki actually....

"Toxic masculinity is one of the ways in which Patriarchy is harmful to men. It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive, and so forth."

...... again nothing here is saying that any masculine trait is harmful rather people who seek to describe the masculine gender with negative terms are. So here even a feminist site, the people you hate so much, are agreeing with me and in no way faulting men or masculinity. Here another one again supporting what I am trying to tell you here....

"So here, in closing, is a definition: the socially-constructed attitudes, mindsets and (yes) boundaries that tell men that there is only one possible way to embody their (also socially-constructed) gende"

The list goes on and on and again and again the same thing comes out of it, they are NOT calling masculinity toxic.... they are NOT calling any masculine trait toxic........ they are NOT calling men toxic........... they ARE saying that expectations and conformity issues pushed onto men is a bad thing. And I agree. And I think if you check, you do too because you strike me as a person of enough character to not stand for being told how you should act or be or feel, or what you shuold want and strive for, because someone put you into some grouping and made assumptions.

Wibbs wrote: »

There is no female equivalent, though neurosis would be good one.

IF There is no female equivilant, there should be. Because as I said by the definition I am explaining to you you can put ANY word after the toxic and get the same phrase. There SHOULD be the phrase toxic femininity. THere SHOULD the phrase Toxic Jewism. There SHOULD be the phrase Toxic homosexuality. There SHOULD be the phrase toxic blackness.

And they all SHOULD be understood to mean the toxic effect of pushing standards and expectations and measurements on a given group based on unwarranted and useless assumptions about that group.

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes. And No. I don't like to see anyone suffering, but I don't see men and women as "arbitrary groupings" either.

Well I should have qualified that that is contextual. I mean if we are looking into financing a vacinne for a condition that affects only women, then clearly the grouping is the EXACT opposite of arbitrary. It is paramount. Or if we are organising certain sporting events it clearly is not either. As we have seen when transgender people cross to the other grouping and then start winning every event.

But in the contexts we are talking about here, remember the context I am stlll clinging to for example is the original discussion about Blindboys feminism comment which triggered you so badly, it is. When it comes to things like getting jobs, earning money, supporting the family, parenting a child, paying for a meal on a date, and much more it is very much arbitrary.

Deleted User wrote: »

The levels of identification with, and lengths some people are willing to go to to defend him, essentially a c list celebrity, are remarkable..

Are many people doing that though? I think most people I have seen, including myself, defend some statements he made..... especially when they are attacked unfairly or distorted like we saw recently.

But most people defending one thing he said appear to me to deride other things. So I am not all the convinced people ARE defending him really.

For example he often goes off on some weird conspiracy theory nonsense about certain drugs, and people being locked in chinese restaurants to produce those drugs, and those people being slaves and trafficked and all kinds of things. And he has not once offered a SHRED of evidence for it. And he basically comes across as a looney toon when he goes there.

I identify with much of what he says, and he has a lot of knowledge about mental health issues and treatment of them much of which I share so I am able to judge. But some of the things he talks about are just looney nut job. Or seem to be until such time as he gets away to supporting and substantiating them rather than throwing them out.

Dude, you're writing tomes there to excuse what he said and trying to frame it in the one way it can be taken where he doesn't come across as a bit of a tit that came out with an ill thought out buzzword for the sake of shock value on national television..

At what point do you just say 'meh, fnck it'..

Deleted User wrote: »

Could it be that the deaths weren't reported as suicides. Very common to brush it under the carpet.

That's the point about middle aged men PJ. Forget suicide as a cause for a sec. They used to have a low death rate overall. It's now increased and markedly so over the last 20-30 years and suicide is reported as the main cause. Even if all the low numbers of men were doing themselves in 30 years ago and it wasn't reported the numbers reported or not(more the former these days) is higher. There's a similar if less obvious trend among young men. Along with men in old age, young men 15-25 were one of the higher risk groups for suicide, that's increased too. The single biggest cause of death in young men is suicide and that's the reported figures.

And you're dead right it was brushed under the carpet in the past, but that was more in play in traditional and religious countries like Ireland(IIRC Saudi Arabia, or some country in that neck of the woods claim none). More secular countries were better at reporting.

Deleted User wrote: »

Dude, you're writing tomes there to excuse what he said and trying to frame it in the one way it can be taken where he doesn't come across as a bit of a tit that came out with an ill thought out buzzword for the sake of shock value on national television..

At what point do you just say 'meh, fnck it'..

Indeed. At times it's like arguing with a well crafted Turing test. But sure that can be fun too, though the projection "triggered" stuff is sailing close to the "I'm out of ammo here, better start hoofing rocks".

nozzferrahhtoo wrote:

So here even a feminist site, the people you hate so much, are agreeing with me and in no way faulting men or masculinity. Here another one again supporting what I am trying to tell you here....

"So here, in closing, is a definition: the socially-constructed attitudes, mindsets and (yes) boundaries that tell men that there is only one possible way to embody their (also socially-constructed) gender"

And here we go... By their own words.... Their first principle and belief is that these traits are "socially constructed". Of course it is, the movement got a gee up in the 60's when the "you can be anything, it's culture and only culture that defines you" stuff came along on the back of the nature/nurture debate pendulum swinging all the way to nurture and that's where it stuck hard and fast, particularly in the social "sciences" like feminismwomen's studies. The "left" and progressives got the horn for it too. The "right" for their part went completely the other way. You'll note more right biased commentators have the horn for some sort of when it suits evolutionary biology notions going on with a side order of biocalvinist* determinism going on(so I suppose it's not a surprise to find that fundamentalist Protestant culture tend to be also right wingers). Ditto for the latter "Red Pill" types. They tie themselves in knots with their attachment to biological determinism.

Annnyhoo... by taking the position that all traits, male and female, are socially constructed, feminism took a look at the socially constructed traits they didn't like and guess which ones they picked on and which gender they associated them with, even if women displayed them? When a woman does display them, they're aligned with, even accused of "patriarchal" thinking.

"It refers to the socially-constructed attitudes that describe the masculine gender role as violent, unemotional, sexually aggressive". I hate to break it to you, but men are on average and across time and cultures and psychological research demonstrably more violent, less demonstrative in emotions and more sexually aggressive. These are not "social constructs". Individuals differ of course and culture may bolster or contain them, but it's acting on an existing underlying trait set. And again even when women display these traits they're seen as outliers and again examples of masculine "toxicity".

Oh and I don't "hate" feminists, nor am I "triggered" by them or some media eejit spouting fashionable rhetoric, bag headed or no. That's in your head and kinda sours your argument.

Anyway, pints beckon. Sayonara and may your farts never be runny.

*© Wibbs 2018.

Deleted User wrote: »

The levels of identification with, and lengths some people are willing to go to to defend him, essentially a c list celebrity, are remarkable..

Was 'Horse outside' one of those life changing, era defining records for ye or what's the craic?..

They were so much more than Horse Outside.. Willie O Dea, Bag of Glue, Up da Ra, Hipster or Hobo, Fight your Father as gaeilge, Fellas, Black Man,Trout of No Craic, The Wasp.. very funny guys back in the day

riffmongous wrote: »

They were so much more than Horse Outside.. Willie O Dea, Bag of Glue, Up da Ra, Hipster or Hobo, Fight your Father as gaeilge, Fellas, Black Man,Trout of No Craic, The Wasp.. very funny guys back in the day

It's all subjective, I suppose..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kLxp2Z-v-k

Deleted User wrote: »

It's all subjective, I suppose..

If you don't find ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ funny I don't know what to say

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8OrE_wVU_4

The old prank calls are all class

yeah,..the prank calls were good..

15 years ago..

*edit*..ahhh..I dunno man..the accent only gets you so far..

Like..by the end, it's just f*ckin stupid..

Is that second one supposed to be a comment on the compensation culture that's prevalent in Limerick?..

Brian?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

I said "I wonder". I didn't say it was happening.

That’s a cop out. What makes you wonder exactly?

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. At times it's like arguing with a well crafted Turing test. But sure that can be fun too, though the projection "triggered" stuff is sailing close to the "I'm out of ammo here, better start hoofing rocks".

Sometimes it can be and I myself am always cautious with the use of that word. But in this case you YOURSELF have validated it. So it is not projection, and nothing to do with "ammo". It is directly building on what you yourself have claimed is true.

The point remains, that as I said he likely could have made the same claims he did without using the word "feminism". Maybe just as well, maybe even better. But your own emotional reaction to the word has led you to not at all engage with the content of his point, and create descriptions of his point (which is what I originally replied to you recall) that was massively distortion based. Or, more accurately, were a reduction to absurdity to create a description that while pedantically defensible serves to make anyone who did not hear the ACTUAL point being made think he said something monumentally more ridiculous than he actually did.

And the sole motivation for you having done that at this time appears to be that you are triggered by the word. The "I'm out of ammo here, better start hoofing rocks" behaviour has been your own.

Wibbs wrote: »

And here we go... By their own words.... Their first principle and belief is that these traits are "socially constructed".

1) I will respond to your response, lest I be accused of dodging it again when I never have dodged anything. But in part two below I will clarify why I should not be doing this at all.

Many of them are, but that is a shift from what we have been discussing to date. To date we have been discussing the claim that some of those traits are in and of themselves toxic. A position you have defended with nothing more than "Toxic means this, Masculinity means this, if you put one in front of the other it means this" despite all the definitions of it quoted at you.

So now you are rabbit holing (again) into another angle. Not an uninteresting one I hasten to add! But the shift of the goal posts is worth pinning flag in so it is not missed by anyone.

But yes I would say many traits assigned to the sexes are socially constructed. Or if it was me I would also say socially exacerbated, in that while some traits might be more common in one sex over the other.... something no one here appears to be denying...... it is society that creates then an EXPECTATION of that trait, or measuring of worth and quality by it. And once again as I keep saying it is THAT rather than the trait itself that "toxic masculinity" or in my view "toxic anything" is being define by. That is, was, and continues to be the only point I am making on the issue.

2) But here is the real rub of your response. The quote you are responding to DID NOT say what you are now talking about.

Your words were.....

"by taking the position that all traits, male and female, are socially constructed, feminism took a look at the socially"

............. and their words were..........

""So here, in closing, is a definition: the socially-constructed attitudes, mindsets and (yes) boundaries that tell men that there is only one possible way to embody their (also socially-constructed) gender""

Nowhere..... let me say that again for effect and focus.......... NOWHERE...... in that quote is anyone "taking the position that all traits, male and female, are socially constructed". In fact no where in that quote is anyone taking the position that ANY traits, male or female, are socially constructed. It simply is not there. Anywhere. At all.

I could not have orchestrated your error here better myself because it PERFECTLY fits the distortion/error I have been discussing over the last few points in that every time I tell you the definitions are NOT about the traits themselves, you go on discussing peoples attitudes to the traits themselves. Then when given a definition that in NO WAY is about the traits themselves...... you directly go on about people taking that position.

AGAIN therefore:

You keep going on about toxic masculinity as if someone is calling some masculine trait (or all of them even) toxic.

The reality is that they, including in that quote right there you replied to, are not doing that. But they are going on as I keep telling you in post after post about the socially constructed attitude that tells men that those traits have to define them.

AGAIN therefore.... "Toxic masculinity" is not about the traits, but how we apply them in our judgements and expectations of others and ourselves.

Deleted User wrote: »

Dude, you're writing tomes there to excuse what he said

But see that is my point. I was discussing ONE thing he said. And you are on here claiming "lengths some people are willing to go to to defend him". Do you not see a difference there? Between discussing ONE statement, and him as a whole?

And I am not "excusing" what he said either as nothing he said in the statement I am discussing requires excusing. What I AM doing is correcting a total, quite malicious actually, distortion of what he said. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Deleted User wrote: »

At what point do you just say 'meh, fnck it'..

At the point it ceases to be an interesting discussion to me, frankly. Because believe it or not I am discussing it for MY interests. Not his.

DickSwiveller Returns

Brian? wrote: »

That’s a cop out. What makes you wonder exactly?

Because it has happened before in many fields. It's amazing how willing you are to swallow whatever figures of authority tell you.

Wibbs wrote: »

Actually much of psychology is up in the air as far as hard data goes. It can be quite the "soft" science particularly by the time it hits the mainstream and it suffers from fashions that come and go. Remember "mindfulness"? That was a recent cure all, some even pushing it to be made a school subject. Then further research showed a strong tendency in gender differences and outcomes from the practice. In essence it was generally helpful for women, less so for men and could actually exacerbate problems in some.

Patriarchy is a strong factor in male mental illness? Great, only that mental illness in men(and women) has and is going up, not down, yet society has become far less patriarchal in its thinking over the same time period. Indeed on the subject of mental health and psychology: we've never had so much emphasis, understanding and access to therapies regarding mental health, yet mental illnesses in men and women are on the increase. And no, the "it wasn't diagnosed in the past" doesn't quite fit either. Take one demographic; middle aged men. A generation ago your average 40 year old western man was one of the least likely to present with mental illnesses, the least likely to turn to suicide and very low down on overall death rates(deaths tended to cluster in younger men and the elderly). Today, they are one of the most likely groups to die by their own hands and their death rates have gone up. Even if every single death by suicide in say 1970 of 40 year old males was hidden it wouldn't explain the overall jump in rates today.

Now somebody could have a brain fart, equate the rise of women's equality with this trend over the same time period and come to the conclusion that Feminism is to blame!!!!, but they'd be a 24 karat moron of the highest quality. There could be a case to answer in how roles have shifted as being one factor alright, but picking a buzzword like feminism or patriarchy and laying all the blame there like this BlindBoy character did is again the easy answer of the moronic, and I would suggest unhelpful.

Seriously man what is wrong with you? For the umpteenth time he did not put all the blame for mental health on feminism and patriarchy. The man is clearly not stupid. He has discussed the bio/psycho/social model of mental health numerous times in his podcast. Will you just let go of this obsession you have with feminism and patriarchy you re coming across like Paul Joseph Watson. He s making a fortune out of disaffected young men so I can see his reason for it.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/limerick-chinese-triad-gang-make-move-into-kerry-34859491.html

http://www.thejournal.ie/dundon-murder-crime-3756350-Dec2017/

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Are many people doing that though? I think most people I have seen, including myself, defend some statements he made..... especially when they are attacked unfairly or distorted like we saw recently.

But most people defending one thing he said appear to me to deride other things. So I am not all the convinced people ARE defending him really.

For example he often goes off on some weird conspiracy theory nonsense about certain drugs, and people being locked in chinese restaurants to produce those drugs, and those people being slaves and trafficked and all kinds of things. And he has not once offered a SHRED of evidence for it. And he basically comes across as a looney toon when he goes there.

I identify with much of what he says, and he has a lot of knowledge about mental health issues and treatment of them much of which I share so I am able to judge. But some of the things he talks about are just looney nut job. Or seem to be until such time as he gets away to supporting and substantiating them rather than throwing them out.

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah,..the prank calls were good..

15 years ago..

*edit*..ahhh..I dunno man..the accent only gets you so far..

Like..by the end, it's just f*ckin stupid..

He didn't use an accent when he wrote his book. How do you account for the success of that. Or was writing a critically acclaimed book another example of his lack of talent.

DickSwiveller Returns

Dannyriver wrote: »

He didn't use an accent when he wrote his book. How do you account for the success of that. Or was writing a critically acclaimed book another example of his lack of talent.

Success doesn't equal talent. The Kardashians are very famous and successful

Silentcorner wrote: »

He is just another one of those "media personalities"/charlatans that we are exposed to all the time...it is a little infuriating living on a small island some times..

One of the many Irish conundrums I find is how egotistical our talentless people can be...verses how grounded our actually talented people are!

He s not a media personality he s a writer and a musician who happens to be in the public spotlight due to his success at being a writer and a musician ... you do understand how this **** works yeah?

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

Success doesn't equal talent. The Kardashians are very famous and successful

Oh man when was the last time Kim kardashian wrote a book that was critically acclaimed by fellow writers and artists. You cant wish stuff away in order to make a point. If Conflating his career and the Kardashian s is a device you re using to make a point then you don t really have a point to make in fairness.