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

DickSwiveller Returns

Dannyriver wrote: »

Is being a writer and musician 'a niche talent' ?

I think calling him a musician is generous

Dannyriver

Silentcorner wrote: »

He has become a media personality because of his very niche talent, he rarely talks about his music or writing...he has become some kind of social commentator...his own ego is an issue for him which has escaped his wisdom somehow!

I don't really have a problem with the work of the Rubberbandits but it hasn't yielded huge financial success for the lads, the man described Boards as a sewer, it's funny, the Irish "celebs" that don't like Boards tend to be the one's whose fame/talent is very shallow verses the amount of media exposure they receive.

Is being a writer and musician 'a niche talent' ?

Dannyriver

Silentcorner wrote: »

He has become a media personality because of his very niche talent, he rarely talks about his music or writing...he has become some kind of social commentator...his own ego is an issue for him which has escaped his wisdom somehow!

I don't really have a problem with the work of the Rubberbandits but it hasn't yielded huge financial success for the lads, the man described Boards as a sewer, it's funny, the Irish "celebs" that don't like Boards tend to be the one's whose fame/talent is very shallow verses the amount of media exposure they receive.

He always talks about his music and writing. His podcasts are not about social commentary. His book sold 30 000 copies at an average of about 12 quid a copy. That adds up to a few Bob, Id say. Do the maths.

Silentcorner

Dannyriver wrote: »

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?

He has become a media personality because of his very niche talent, he rarely talks about his music or writing...he has become some kind of social commentator...his own ego is an issue for him which has escaped his wisdom somehow!

I don't really have a problem with the work of the Rubberbandits but it hasn't yielded huge financial success for the lads, the man described Boards as a sewer, it's funny, the Irish "celebs" that don't like Boards tend to be the one's whose fame/talent is very shallow verses the amount of media exposure they receive.

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry, are people not allowed to ask questions of your idol when he platforms his personal opinions in the media?

Eh I didn't say he did. He did suggest more than once that these were answers and explanations for the rise in mental health issues among young men.

"I personally think that what these young men need is feminism – because when I’m down in Limerick speaking to lads that I know who are suffering from mental health issues, when I actually speak to them and get to the core of ‘what’s bothering you man?’ what they always say to me is ‘I have nothing to offer a woman’." "The fact of the matter is that is a patriarchal attitude that is no longer relevant to us in the 21st Century.".

Forget the feminism stuff for a second, from his own mouth his opinion is that the "lads" he knows who suffer mental illness the core of it no less is down to they have nothing to offer a woman. A monumentally simplistic to the point of stupidity statement, that is more about a newly converted politic he's eager to speak about. Never mind that it completely ignores the young men who are in good relationships, are egalitarian in their views and have an otherwise "great life" who suffer from mental illness. Look at the current and very good AMA thread featuring a chap who has suffered from mental illness. Had a great career, a wife and an understanding and loving one at that, who now earns more than him(which he thinks is great) and yet he needed extensive treatment for depression and ADHD. It's almost a cliche about the man(or woman for that matter) with the Great Life, who surprises all when it comes out they suffer from mental illness.

To be fair comparing him to a bunch of media whores like the Kardashians is more than a bit of a stretch. Though their freak show taken seriously success says much about what is askew with many in the world today. Or they may be a surreal release valve along the lines of "jaysus, we're bad, but not nearly as fcuked up as those muppets". Hard to call.

There is ample evidence and any psychologist worth their salt will tell you that gender stereotypes can have a deleterious effect on the mental health [be they male or female] of those who take these stereotypes seriously. But there are many other reasons also why someone might run into difficulties which he talks about at length in his podcasts. So if you ll just accept that he never said that all men have mental health issues due to male stereotypes and that he was talking about one aspect of the problem and also that he was taking feminism to be the traditional meaning i.e equality then you don t really have any arguing to do because you ll be essentially agreeing with him.

Wibbs

Dannyriver wrote: »

Seriously man what is wrong with you?

Oh I'm sorry, are people not allowed to ask questions of your idol when he platforms his personal opinions in the media?

For the umpteenth time he did not put all the blame for mental health on feminism and patriarchy.

Eh I didn't say he did. He did suggest more than once that these were answers and explanations for the rise in mental health issues among young men.

"I personally think that what these young men need is feminism – because when I’m down in Limerick speaking to lads that I know who are suffering from mental health issues, when I actually speak to them and get to the core of ‘what’s bothering you man?’ what they always say to me is ‘I have nothing to offer a woman’." "The fact of the matter is that is a patriarchal attitude that is no longer relevant to us in the 21st Century.".

Forget the feminism stuff for a second, from his own mouth his opinion is that the "lads" he knows who suffer mental illness the core of it no less is down to they have nothing to offer a woman. A monumentally simplistic to the point of stupidity statement, that is more about a newly converted politic he's eager to speak about. Never mind that it completely ignores the young men who are in good relationships, are egalitarian in their views and have an otherwise "great life" who suffer from mental illness. Look at the current and very good AMA thread featuring a chap who has suffered from mental illness. Had a great career, a wife and an understanding and loving one at that, who now earns more than him(which he thinks is great) and yet he needed extensive treatment for depression and ADHD. It's almost a cliche about the man(or woman for that matter) with the Great Life, who surprises all when it comes out they suffer from mental illness.

DickSwiveller Returns wrote: »

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

To be fair comparing him to a bunch of media whores like the Kardashians is more than a bit of a stretch. Though their freak show taken seriously success says much about what is askew with many in the world today. Or they may be a surreal release valve along the lines of "jaysus, we're bad, but not nearly as fcuked up as those muppets". Hard to call.

Dannyriver

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.

Dannyriver

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

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

Dannyriver

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.

Dannyriver

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.

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/

Dannyriver

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.

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

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?

[Deleted User]

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

[Deleted User]

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..

[Deleted User]

The old prank calls are all class

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

[Deleted User]

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

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

It's all subjective, I suppose..

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

[Deleted User]

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..

[Deleted User]

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

Wibbs

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.

Wibbs

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]

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'..

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

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!

[Deleted User]

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?..