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

DEFTLEFTHAND

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Hahaha I grew up there, South Central it isn't.

Ard Scoil Ris? Blindboys house? Art College?

Yeah ye're totally not comfortably middle class posing as some sort of oppressed types from the ghetto

Full of it!

He's appropriating working class culture.

[Deleted User]

Dannyriver in Blindboy's mate shocker!!

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

And who generally does the asking out? :P

In my experience of those around me, which is anecdotal to me alone of course, it has been a pretty even split over the last decade. Historically I guess it was more often the guys. But I just do not see that dynamic any more.

However how much of that is influenced by online dating I have no idea. The number of people in my circles and extended circles who got together online, dating apps and other, is in or around the 50% mark. And in that context it appears to me the women are equally or more often the ones to suggest moving the discussion into meat-space.

Or at least they are if you leave out the statistic of men who message the women instantly to suggest no strings sex, quickies, phone sex, naked picture swapping, and dirty talk. From the people who start off with conversation and continue with conversation, the split of the one to suggest a move to meat-space is generally even.

But actual figures on that outside the anecdote of my personal circles and extended circles I have not seen. Has there been studies on this kind of thing? I would love to think and hope it has moved towards being around 50:50.

Dannyriver

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Hahaha I grew up there, South Central it isn't.

Ard Scoil Ris? Blindboys house? Art College?

Yeah ye're totally not comfortably middle class posing as some sort of oppressed types from the ghetto

Full of it!

First and foremost everyone [except you clearly] knows it's a character he plays and has never stated that it wasn't. A five year old wouldn t get that confused.

I also grew up in Caherdavin and it's not posh by any means though there are some with notions but that s another story. I take it that in your eyes if its not south central its posh yeah?... And Blindboy's house? what s that meant to mean?

[Deleted User]

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I have a massive problem with some definitions of the word "feminism" but I really don't know the one he was referencing at the time of the comment.

I will say in relation to the comment about young men - I'd advise both young men and woman basically to make sure they are true to themselves. Don't change for another person, don't expect anyone will change because you want them to.

If you go out - one who invites, pays or you agree to split.

The days of the male breadwinner are largely gone - it's whoever brings the bacon home, most likely two wages packets are needed. Especially with kids involved.

You are most likely correct that using the F word definitely inflames some. Myself included - as a woman some of the current Fs annoy me!!!

And who generally does the asking out? :P

Sal Butamol

Dannyriver wrote: »

Caherdavin the very epitome of the 'backyard decking' brigade. You re the one full of ****e with stupid comments like that.

Hahaha I grew up there, South Central it isn't.

Ard Scoil Ris? Blindboys house? Art College?

Yeah ye're totally not comfortably middle class posing as some sort of oppressed types from the ghetto

Full of it!

Dannyriver

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Have to laugh at their constant sniping at the middle classes or as they like to call them - "people who can afford backyard decking"

So edgy.

So hypocritical. The lads went to so called "posh school" Ard Scoil Ris and hail from the Ennis Road in Limerick, the very epitome of the "backyard decking" brigade.

They started their act by mocking the typical working class Limerick figure.

Now they harp on as if they grew up in Southill, not the leafy comfortable suburbs of Limerick.

They're full of ****

Caherdavin the very epitome of the 'backyard decking' brigade. You re the one full of ****e with stupid comments like that.

Sal Butamol

Have to laugh at their constant sniping at the middle classes or as they like to call them - "people who can afford backyard decking"

So edgy.

So hypocritical. The lads went to so called "posh school" Ard Scoil Ris and hail from the Ennis Road in Limerick, the very epitome of the "backyard decking" brigade.

They started their act by mocking the typical working class Limerick figure.

Now they harp on as if they grew up in Southill, not the leafy comfortable suburbs of Limerick.

They're full of ****

Dannyriver

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why do you keep citing nozz? Are you not reading the replies to his laughable points?

I keep citing him because he has eloquently made the points that I know longer have to make because he made them already. I ve read the replies and there has not been one commentator on here that has challenged successfully anything that he has said.

Write a song about an important subject in an obvious attempt at getting some credibility. Now which fictional character does that remind me of.

You know **** all about the personal circumstances as to why someone might want to address suicide in their music, and to therefore suggest that it was done for selfish reasons around credibility just shows you to be immensely immature and cynical or just a total arse. Fling **** at people all you like if you have proof until that point you re as well off holding on to that kind of nasty ****. Some fantasy's are best left private.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ush1 wrote: »

That is what I'm saying.

And as I said, I think it is sweet. People seem genuinely interested in offering comments on how I construct my posts. I am touched. But at nearly 40 I reckon the voice I have developed over the years is not likely to change much. I cherish the ignore function on forums like this. No one needs to listen to me

Ush1 wrote: »

Well it was unpleasant for me to listen to which is featured in your description.

With the "and" qualifier. Which changes them from synonyms to completely different words.

Ush1 wrote: »

Regardless, no, it personally wouldn't raise my eyebrow had I noticed that but maybe some eyebrows are twitchier than others eh?

Doubt it. As I said if we have different understandings of the phrase "sh*t show" that is fine. But the change from one to the other, given my understanding of the two, certainly warrants a twitch as it appears under those definitions to be a COMPLETE back pedal.

Ush1 wrote: »

Not listened to it, to what end? You remarked people not listening to it and hearing what they want to hear.

Beats me to what end. But if a person uses a phrase that appears to in no way describe the thing it was directed at......... a person can be forgiven for suspecting the person using the phrase did not actually listen to the thing in question.

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm telling you I wanted to hear Blindboy be funny, interesting and entertaining as I sometimes find him. He wasn't.

Hard to be on such a sensitive subject. They were sitting talking about a book in which the main character is gang raped. The author also describing that this book was informed by similar experiences in her own youth.

Not that being funny then is the wrong thing to do, done right it is a GREAT thing to do (I am not in the "rape can never be funny" crowd, anything in comedy done right can be funny)..... but you're not going to pull it off every time.

As I said in one of the first posts on the thread I made this week.... he thinks people left because they do not like feminism. He needs to cop on to that one. They were discussing a serious subject at a COMEDY festival. I would say anyone who left, left for no other reason than that.

My usually good memory is failing me now, but I did laugh mightily at something he was saying at the START of the interview. But I seem to be one of those people who can come out of a comedy show and forget every joke the comedian made. Mad huh? I am sure the first 5 or 10 minutes had me laughing quite a lot, and now I can not recall at all what or why.

EDIT, just listened back at double speed: His opening ice breaker was funny but also useful as a relaxer. About how having the questions on the phone make him look disinterested and reading texts. I liked his "Ok you have outlined your position" comment too. Really gave the people in question all the consideration they deserved for their non-points. And his monologue about the Tennis Ball Essays was the bit that had me laughing out loud. Comedy is subjective, but come on THAT was funny right? "Christ made his way into the Cuchullan stories........". For some reason I was hearing that anecdote, but parsing it from the perspective of the teacher who gave that essay out...... thinking it was a punishment.... and reading the result. Which just made it funnier for me.

EDIT EDIT: Sorry I missed the time point here but around 33 minutes to 38 minutes, where they are talking about masturbation and sex toys, that was pretty funny too. When he was talking in this interview he actually WAS funny. I think a more accurate description, that explains YOUR disappointment, is he is the kind of interviewer that lets the interviewee keep talking. At length. Keeping his own input to a minimum. Which is kinda good sometimes, but if you want him to be funny he is only going to do that in the short windows when he is actually talking. Only a rough estimate here but I think the talking ratio in that interview was 70% her 30% him. Maybe even more.

Ush1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Seems to be the opposite thing most people moaning about my posts accuse me of. They seem to think I should be a lot more economical with them than I actually am. I just write the way I write. I do think it is.... sweet..... that people try to control it.

That is what I'm saying.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That would certainly explain a lot. Just like "feminism" it appears there is a lot less difference of opinion than people think solely because people have different understandings of the same word.

Which makes this a useful post from you to make that point. For example:

"**** Show" : "a situation or event marked by chaos or controversy."

Or:

"**** Show" : "a situation or event that is badly organized, unpleasant, and full of confusion".

I saw no chaos, no controversy, the organization appeared to work just fine, and no one seemed at all confused. Which makes it hard to push the definition to fit. So you can at least see why my eyebrows may have been elevated when that simply got switched for "Mundane"?

Well it was unpleasant for me to listen to which is featured in your description. Regardless, no, it personally wouldn't raise my eyebrow had I noticed that but maybe some eyebrows are twitchier than others eh?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ehhhhh no? Not one post before the one you were replying to I mentioned I had for a time suspected you had not actually listened to it.

Why you might think I was referring to anything other than THAT at this juncture, not minutes after that post, is very baffling to me.

Not listened to it, to what end? You remarked people not listening to it and hearing what they want to hear.

I'm telling you I wanted to hear Blindboy be funny, interesting and entertaining as I sometimes find him. He wasn't.

nozzferrahhtoo

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I have a massive problem with some definitions of the word "feminism" but I really don't know the one he was referencing at the time of the comment.

Which is the main thing that has been baffling me consistently during this entire conversation for the last couple of days now. Because he says WITHIN the comment which one he is using. He literally defines the word IN the comment where he is using the word.

So how, at this juncture, someone can claim not to know is...... well it would be laugh out loud comedy if it was not so tragic.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I will say in relation to the comment about young men - I'd advise both young men and woman basically to make sure they are true to themselves. Don't change for another person, don't expect anyone will change because you want them to.

And this is exactly what I mean. The moment we climb past the trigger word we start saying things that we almost entirely agree with each other on. I would almost 100% say that everything you wrote in that paragraph is great stuff. Only with some pedantry I would change "Don't change for anther person" to "Be open to change for any reason, including for another person, but never feel you HAVE to".

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The days of the male breadwinner are largely gone - it's whoever brings the bacon home, most likely two wages packets are needed. Especially with kids involved.

Which sounds to me almost exactly like the point Blindboy was making in the video in question. Again when we strip away the trigger word..... we suddenly find we are all singing from the same hymn sheet.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

You are most likely correct that using the F word definitely inflames some.

Brilliant, isn't it a pity the phrase "The F word" is already taken? :P

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Myself included - as a woman some of the current Fs annoy me!!!

Me too. Alas I think this is mightily compounded by the fact the click bait and revenue driven media of our modern world is focused almost entirely on bringing us the utterances of such people.

As you might have noticed (or not?) I have almost entirely avoided defending feminism at all on this thread. 98% of what I have written was defending nothing more than the correct interpretation of what I believe one individual ACTUALLY said over what many people are lining up to PRETEND he said.

But feminism discussions in and of themselves, especially on line..... confuse me. I simply do not recognise the real world around me in what I read online. Like all the people commenting on feminism live in a completely different world to me.

Like the guy earlier in the thread claiming all the women he "works with" (worried, but interested, as to what that work actually entails but he did not offer this) pick up men and then dump them when they are not getting enough "treats" from them.

To say that does not describe the reality I have observed is an understatement. It is not that I have seen FEW women act that way. I have seen NO women act that way. At all.

I am not saying they are lying or their reality does not exist. I am just saying that NOTHING from my reality tracks with what I read about men, and women, and what "men want" and what "women want" that I get in these online discussions.

And I read so much of it. Women want men earning so much money. Women want men who are taller than such and such a height. Women want men who do X Y and Z without question. And so on. And then I pull my mind out of the online reality and back into the one around me..... and NOTHING maps on. Anywhere.

So I simply feel precluded from those discussions, because I have no basis to agree or disagree with any of it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Deleted User wrote: »

Language breaks down when the meaning of words becomes purely subjective..

For sure. But I think that is not QUITE what has happened here. Rather than being subjective I Think the word simply has two or three generally accepted meanings.

Language can also break down just as much when words with with two or three meanings are used so that one person uses one meaning, and other people pretend they used another.

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Everything is my answer. E.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g.

Which is a simple non-answer. You are not actually explaining how ANYTHING is wrong with it just by shouting EVERYTHING at it.

That I even have to explain that out loud is...... telling.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ush1 wrote: »

Speaking of words, your economic use of them is shocking.

Seems to be the opposite thing most people moaning about my posts accuse me of. They seem to think I should be a lot more economical with them than I actually am. I just write the way I write. I do think it is.... sweet..... that people try to control it.

Ush1 wrote: »

I wasn't back peddling, but perhaps I'm not fully up with modern lingo. I meant it was literally a sh*t show, as in, not very good.

That would certainly explain a lot. Just like "feminism" it appears there is a lot less difference of opinion than people think solely because people have different understandings of the same word.

Which makes this a useful post from you to make that point. For example:

"**** Show" : "a situation or event marked by chaos or controversy."

Or:

"**** Show" : "a situation or event that is badly organized, unpleasant, and full of confusion".

I saw no chaos, no controversy, the organization appeared to work just fine, and no one seemed at all confused. Which makes it hard to push the definition to fit. So you can at least see why my eyebrows may have been elevated when that simply got switched for "Mundane"?

Ush1 wrote: »

What suspicions? That I'm a CIA operative?

Ehhhhh no?

Not one post before the one you were replying to I mentioned I had for a time suspected you had not actually listened to it.

Why you might think I was referring to anything other than THAT at this juncture, not minutes after that post, is very baffling to me.

PlaneSpeeking

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed. And we should not let points of agreement get away from us in topics that have proven divisive. I think the word "feminism" means many different things to many different people. And that is an issue.

I do not think he is "wrong" as such. After all when I typed "define feminism" into google at the start of this discussion, all but one link (the one Dick above contrived to cite I notice) pretty much fit 100% with Blindboys definition.

But no one, or at least certainly not me, is calling the definition of "feminism" from Wibbs, Pete and a few others "wrong" here. I think neither they nor he are "wrong".

The only thing I think is wrong, and massively so.... especially as I strongly suspect it is solely done out of malice and agenda....... is when a person parses Blindboys point through their own definition of "feminism" rather than the one he offered while making the point.

That is massively dishonest. Malicious. And detrimental to mature, and useful discourse.

I have a massive problem with some definitions of the word "feminism" but I really don't know the one he was referencing at the time of the comment.

I will say in relation to the comment about young men - I'd advise both young men and woman basically to make sure they are true to themselves. Don't change for another person, don't expect anyone will change because you want them to.

If you go out - one who invites, pays or you agree to split.

The days of the male breadwinner are largely gone - it's whoever brings the bacon home, most likely two wages packets are needed. Especially with kids involved.

You are most likely correct that using the F word definitely inflames some. Myself included - as a woman some of the current Fs annoy me!!!

Sal Butamol

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So, no answer then. You just shout the word "everything" and run away without explaining or answering a single thing.

Just. As. I. Expected.

Everything is my answer. E.v.e.r.y.t.h.i.n.g.

[Deleted User]

Language breaks down when the meaning of words becomes purely subjective..

Ush1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And as I said, you were then unable to lend any substance to the description "sh*t show" and backpeddled it to "mundane" which is to my understanding of both phrases a massively different description.

So when someone describes something as X and then when asked to clarify they change their description to a very different and much more dilute Y..... I think I can at the very least be forgiven for harbouring suspicions of that nature. If you consider it honestly, were the roles reversed, you likely would have too.

Speaking of words, your economic use of them is shocking.

I wasn't back peddling, but perhaps I'm not fully up with modern lingo. I meant it was literally a sh*t show, as in, not very good.

Now I've explained that twice.

What suspicions? That I'm a CIA operative? I have actually said I find him funny and sometimes like some of what he talks about on the podcast. It's actually a shame because he's like a friend who's funny but then starts droning on again about Marxism and the patriarchy.

nozzferrahhtoo

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Ah right. I believe he's wrong but hey ho, vive la difference!

Indeed. And we should not let points of agreement get away from us in topics that have proven divisive. I think the word "feminism" means many different things to many different people. And that is an issue.

I do not think he is "wrong" as such. After all when I typed "define feminism" into google at the start of this discussion, all but one link (the one Dick above contrived to cite I notice) pretty much fit 100% with Blindboys definition.

But no one, or at least certainly not me, is calling the definition of "feminism" from Wibbs, Pete and a few others "wrong" here. I think neither they nor he are "wrong".

The only thing I think is wrong, and massively so.... especially as I strongly suspect it is solely done out of malice and agenda....... is when a person parses Blindboys point through their own definition of "feminism" rather than the one he offered while making the point.

That is massively dishonest. Malicious. And detrimental to mature, and useful discourse.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ush1 wrote: »

Well that part of you is wrong, I did listen to it.....unfortunately.

And as I said, you were then unable to lend any substance to the description "sh*t show" and backpeddled it to "mundane" which is to my understanding of both phrases a massively different description.

So when someone describes something as X and then when asked to clarify they change their description to a very different and much more dilute Y..... I think I can at the very least be forgiven for harbouring suspicions of that nature. If you consider it honestly, were the roles reversed, you likely would have too.

PlaneSpeeking

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It was not an analogy. But here are his own words (from memory, as I have re-watched the video 10 times over the course of this debate.....this will not be word for word perfect but it will be close. Someone can grade me out of 10 for how word perfect I get this now ).

"If you are to go out and buy a house or have a living with a woman, you must be equal, it is as simple as that. So if young men have this faulty view that their role is to provide for a woman.... forget about it. Feminism is not about women being powerful, it is about redressing a balance. And therefore feminism is a very necessary thing for young men to have".

Ah right. I believe he's wrong but hey ho, vive la difference!

nozzferrahhtoo

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Fundamentally? Everything.

So, no answer then. You just shout the word "everything" and run away without explaining or answering a single thing.

Just. As. I. Expected.

Ush1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I wonder that about a lot of things. The revival of this thread followed the podcast he did with Louise ONeill. And one user called the entire podcast something like "The sh*t show you would expect".

So I listened to it and not one statement in it seemed all that objectionable.

So I questioned the user what the issue actually was, who then said they just meant it was mundane. Which seems like quite a different thing to me entirely.

I did not say it at the time, but part of me felt that the person in question did not actually listen to it, but thought they were on safe ground declaring it to have been what THEY expected it was going to be.

It makes me suspect people here are reacting to what they WANT him to have said, rather than what he actually did say. For example if you take something said to me yesterday you will notice the contrived vaugeness of it.....

.... where the user does not in any way tell us what that "brand of feminism" is. They do not cite a single thing the guy said or wrote. They do not quote him. They do not define the "brand of feminism" and show how the definition links back to this speaker.

Nothing. Nothing at all. Basically they think if they say "his brand of feminism" in ominous enough terms they can instill the impression it must be something awful he subscribes to without every having to ACTUALLY discuss what he says, does, believes, writes or subscribes to. And that borders on a level of malicious desperation I really have no explanation for. Or even theories for to be honest.

Why? Since neither blind-boy nor anyone on this thread, least of all me, has made such a claim, why would anyone want to spend time defending such a claim?

Well that part of you is wrong, I did listen to it.....unfortunately.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why do you keep citing nozz? Are you not reading the replies to his laughable points?

Points you can not rebut and ignore, yeah I know what is laughable here. But if there is a problem with my points, show that, rather than fling labels you can not make stick.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ah ffs, that's exactly what he said ..

And I am not being snide or insulting when I say that I genuinely do not believe any more that your issue (or at least the majority of it) is coming solely from your being triggered by this man, or the word feminism. Rather I am strongly suspecting you simple are not parsing very simple English well. Either through bias (my suspicion) or genuine lack of English Comprehension (possible, but I do not suspect this).

I think a litimus test thought experiment here is required if you would humor me. It is not a "gotcha" or anything, just a genuine test to see if parsing English is the trouble with this conversation with you here.

Imagine for me that you receive a page of stats saying that suicide in Ireland and HIV rates in Ireland, were the lowest in 2018 than any time in our history in the Heterosexual community. But the same stats for homosexual men was the highest it has ever been.

If off the back of those stats I said something like "This is terrible, HIV and suicide is higher than it has ever been in the homosexual community, what that community needs right now is access to PrEP!"

What do you think that statement IS saying and is NOT saying exactly? Linguistically I mean, forgetting whether you think PrEP is useful or not. I mean purely on a linguistic level what do you think I have said with that statement.

IF you honestly parse that statement the SAME way you are parsing Blindboys I know what your answer will be. IF however, as I suspect, bias is modifying how you parse one and not the other, I also think I know what your answer will be.

So if you humor me and answer, I think it could genuinely be informative.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Blindboy: "I personally believe what these young men need is feminism"

At which point he went on to define, very clearly, and very concisely, what he thinks feminism means and involved.

But in weird ominous knowing tones you have indicated you personally know what "brand of feminism" he subscribes to and somehow I do not.

And you have made this claim without a single citation. A single source. A single reference. A single link. A single example. A single ANYTHING.

Just a "I listened to stuff, so I got the knowz" type hand waving.

So..... source please? What is your source to suggest he has a different understanding of it than the one he himself gives?

I genuinely believe you will not respond to this with one because I genuinely believe you do not have one. But I have been wrong before. Ah 2002. It was a good year.

Sal Butamol

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

YOUR brand of feminism perhaps. But you have failed with remarkable consistency to show how "feminism" as defined in the point he was making fits the descriptions like the one you offer here.

Which just makes my point for me yet again. None of you appear even remotely inclined to listen to what the man (boy? no idea what age he is actually) actually said. YOu just hear the word "feminism", decide you know what that means, and parse the entire shebang through your own filter.

Get over your being triggered by the word feminism for a moment and tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with the following: "If a man is suffering depression or anxiety or low self esteem because he has a unwarranted skewed view of the man's role in relationships.......... then it is a useful move with him to make to educate him on equality between the sexes and their roles within relationships".

Can you explain to me what is fundamentally wrong with that claim?

Fundamentally? Everything.

nozzferrahhtoo

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Okay, genuinely enlighten me - what do you or Blindboy mean by feminism in that analogy ?

It was not an analogy. But here are his own words (from memory, as I have re-watched the video 10 times over the course of this debate.....this will not be word for word perfect but it will be close. Someone can grade me out of 10 for how word perfect I get this now

).

"If you are to go out and buy a house or have a living with a woman, you must be equal, it is as simple as that. So if young men have this faulty view that their role is to provide for a woman.... forget about it. Feminism is not about women being powerful, it is about redressing a balance. And therefore feminism is a very necessary thing for young men to have".

Outlaw Pete

Dannyriver wrote: »

As Nozz above has pointed out..

Why do you keep citing nozz? Are you not reading the replies to his laughable points?

Blindboy didn t advocate feminism as a solution to suicidal young men.....

Ah ffs, that's exactly what he did .. :P

Blindboy: "I personally believe what these young men need is feminism"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWUDQdiFB7A

A more complete idea of where they stand on suicide would be their song sonny. It's a short song so you should be able to stick with it till the end.

Write a song about an important subject in an obvious attempt at getting some credibility. Now which fictional character does that remind me of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmTV62mE1PA

PlaneSpeeking

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

YOUR brand of feminism perhaps. But you have failed with remarkable consistency to show how "feminism" as defined in the point he was making fits the descriptions like the one you offer here.

Which just makes my point for me yet again. None of you appear even remotely inclined to listen to what the man (boy? no idea what age he is actually) actually said. YOu just hear the word "feminism", decide you know what that means, and parse the entire shebang through your own filter.

Okay, genuinely enlighten me - what do you or Blindboy mean by feminism in that analogy ?

nozzferrahhtoo

Sal Butamol wrote: »

Advocating feminism for suicidal young men is like handing them a loaded shotgun and recommending they take up hunting to get out in the fresh air.

YOUR brand of feminism perhaps. But you have failed with remarkable consistency to show how "feminism" as defined in the point he was making fits the descriptions like the one you offer here.

Which just makes my point for me yet again. None of you appear even remotely inclined to listen to what the man (boy? no idea what age he is actually) actually said. YOu just hear the word "feminism", decide you know what that means, and parse the entire shebang through your own filter.

Get over your being triggered by the word feminism for a moment and tell me EXACTLY what is wrong with the following: "If a man is suffering depression or anxiety or low self esteem because he has a unwarranted skewed view of the man's role in relationships.......... then it is a useful move with him to make to educate him on equality between the sexes and their roles within relationships".

Can you explain to me what is fundamentally wrong with that claim?

Sal Butamol

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But if we start advocating a particular form "feminism" for people who are suffering specifically from issues that this form of "feminism" is likely to specifically address, then you are at the top of the barrel doing useful things for society.

So lets all do that, just like Blindboy did and people are pretending he did not.

Advocating feminism for suicidal young men is like handing them a loaded shotgun and recommending they take up hunting to get out in the fresh air.