RayM wrote: » It's quite possible that gender quotas will result in government composition being a bit more of a meritocracy
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I really really don't get that at all Firstly - I asked "why do you feel so strongly against Men who might not display stereotypical masculine or macho traits?" - I dont see what that has to do with women crying
Secondly - I dont get why you assume that all men who might be doing something not stereotypically masculine or macho are going through an identity crisis
Thirdly - So what if they are having an identity crisis? Whats the issue that you cant respect people going through an identity crisis?
Czarcasm wrote: » I'm not passing comment on every man I see wearing testicle restrictors, I don't particularly care as it makes no odds to my life. I'm simply saying that I have no interest in taking such men seriously when they're not going to take themselves seriously.
Wibbs wrote: » The thing is for me Ray, putting the word quota and meritocracy in the same sentence is a glaring contradiction.
Czarcasm wrote: » It was the best example I could think of that some men (and women who find the behaviour of these men attractive) use as a justification for getting emotional at the slightest incident. "Being in touch with their feminine side" is an apparent justification for their inability to show some emotional restraint. It's an insult to women I know anyway who don't behave like a good cry solves a multitude. They would address the issue they are having, not sit down and cry about it.
Czarcasm wrote: » Really? For all your education and your knowledge and your high minded high horsery and you still don't get why human beings behave like human beings? I don't know what stereotype you have in mind when you talk about masculine or macho stereotypes because I don't make assumptions about people.
Czarcasm wrote: » These men aren't long letting you know that you're the one with the problem, a bit like what you're trying to do right now. I'm not passing comment on every man I see wearing testicle restrictors, I don't particularly care as it makes no odds to my life. I'm simply saying that I have no interest in taking such men seriously when they're not going to take themselves seriously. They can dress like bo-bo the clown and do cartwheels down O' Connell street for all I care.
Czarcasm wrote: » If men want to behave the way they think women behave, by being overtly camp and punctuating their speech with a ridiculously dramatic tone in an attempt to sound interesting, I would call that an identity crisis, because not only are they playing up to a stereotype of the way they think women behave, but they appear to reject any form of behaviour they see as stereotypically masculine (their impression of masculine stereotypes that is!).
Czarcasm wrote: » I said they behave like they're having some sort of identity crisis. I have the utmost empathy for anyone experiencing mental health difficulties (I like the way you tried to spin that though!), but there's a difference between someone experiencing mental health difficulties, and a man who is just a head melt. I'm all for diversity and all, but my level of tolerance is flexible, depending on whether I'm prepared to tolerate someone who is genuine, and someone who is acting like a twat. I can respect the former, the latter however - not so much, nor should I have to. If someone else wants to entertain such nonsense and call themselves tolerant, good for them, but I see no reason why I should tolerate such behaviour.
Rough Sleeper wrote: » Read that back to yourself there and see if sounds like you're passing comment or not.
By the by I can't understand this notion that skinny jeans are necessarily effeminate. Tight pants have been in and out of fashion since the times of yore. Tudorian and Georgian clothes spring immediately to mind. In more recent years they've been associated with the likes of 70s punk culture and have actually begun to replace baggy pants with recent hip hop artists - two scenes associated with extreme machismo as much as anything.
And FWIW most skinny jeans have pouches around the crotch to accommodate one's testicles. Other really tight ones are made of very elastic material and are no more restrictive than boxers shorts. These spray-on variety seem to have largely replaced the genuine ball-crushers that were around a few years back.
Privileged White Male wrote: » I'd like to know more about op's colleague, sounds like your typical feminist. And in my experience women are far more attracted to dominant masculine men.
Friend Computer wrote: » Just to be clear, Czarcasm, do you accept that there are men that behave that way because it is their innate personality?
Or is this just another "boy, I sure hate those camp queers" thread in a different guise?
FTA69 wrote: » She's a prominent feminist commentator who writes for the Guardian. Ironically enough she also likes masculine men.
Czarcasm wrote: » No FC I don't, because having taken the time to take them aside for five minutes on their own, I wasn't long discovering that not just the majority, but in every single instance, their extrovert behaviour was a mask for their innate personality. I really cannot abide by people who put on facades and pretend to be something they're not, when they'd be far more likeable and worth my time if they behaved according to their innate personality. I don't want to get involved in this debate that's going on but {sorry if I'm reading this wrong} the above is ridiculous. My friend's little brother is 5 years old and his personality is unwaveringly camp, he's 5 but he can't say a single sentence without exuberant hand gestures and when you're talking to him his face goes through so many expressive changes its actually quite funny. Now he's 5, I seriously doubt he has a façade to hind his 'innate personality'. {even though I'd be the first to admit that the intuitiveness and self-awareness of young children is too often underestimated}
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Whats wrong with being emotional?
Czarcasm wrote: » I'm not passing comment on ALL men who wear testicle restrictors though. I'd need more information before I could ultimately discern whether a stranger I've just met is a twat, but on balance I can only speak from my own experience when I say that of the number of men I've met who turned out to be twats, restrictive clothing did and does seem to be a common trait. Of course men in well fitted clothing can be twats too, but they're not usually so extrovert about it so don't get on my wick as quickly as the scrotum stranglers.
We're neither living in Tudorian nor Georgian times now though, not to mention I think you've missed the point of glam rock in the 70's, sure as hell wasn't punk culture, and even at that most men were still wearing bell bottoms and flares. I trust you've seen John Travolta in Saturday Night Fever?
If you're suggesting hip-hop culture is in any respect a reflection of masculine behaviour that men should aspire to, I'd suggest you might need to go again
Clearly I'm not as on-trend and up to date on the latest developments in male fashion as you are. I mean, I appreciate the heads-up, but it's not something I would see myself ever agonising over.
average hero wrote: » My rant on masculinity and manliness: Men are currently in a state of crisis. As Wibbs mentioned, there is a lack of (suitable) role models for young men today with the result being that they are more lost than ever. I've pals who dress like the stereotype - skinny jeans and the whole lot. We slag each other a bit and when I ask them why they dress like that, the response I get is - 'because I'm being myself and original'. That's fair enough but don't tell me that when you're wearing the 'fashionable haircut' and wearing mass produced River Island/TopMan etc etc gear like everybody else. Original....yeeaahh. Which leads me to my next point. I think that the media is responsible for trying to make both genders androgynous. Toy shops have been asked to take down 'boys toys and girls toys' signs (google it). Men are being encouraged to get more into their looks as women have been for ages. Last week I read an article in the Guardian that reported that the fashion/beauty industry aren't content to simply torture women to look a certain way, but now men are being told if they can't look a certain way they are not worthy. Obviously in both the toys and beauty market they are trying to grow their markets by targeting the opposite gender. I studied marketing, I know how these thangs work. Any opposition to it and suddenly you're not progressive, you're a neanderthal. You're maybe even.....wait for it....not 'cool'. Shock, horror. Traditional masculinity is dying. I don't mean by being a thug, but I mean by showing emotional restraint, protecting other's honour, having discipline (in many different facets of life) and working hard. With this being said, traditional femininity is dying too. I wonder in about 30 years will people wake up and say 'what have we been doing to our natural urges and evolution for so long?'
Links234 wrote: » It really says a lot about the lack of security some guys have in their masculinity if they're so quick to admonish other men for being limp-wristed, in touch with their feelings, being a hipster/metrosexual or whatever the latest buzzword to put someone else down so you can feel better about yourselves is these days, or god forbid someone who lives in a city and doesn't need a car because they use public transport and therefor have no call to ever change a tire. And honestly, changing a tire isn't a "man skill", it's just a skill that someone may or may not need. My girlfriend could change a tire, but she's from the country, pretty much everyone in her family can do that as far as I know, and that's because of nessecity. What were so-called "man skills" before cars were invented? Would anyone here know a skill like shoeing a horse, or something else that's no longer relevent to most of our lives? And whatever happened to just being yourself?
Rough Sleeper wrote: » That's great. In my personal experience twats tend to dress in a more mainstream fashion. Which nullifies your anecdote.
Did you ever consider that some of these people of whom you speak may come across as twats because they're reciprocating?
The fact that you keep referring to skinny jeans as "testicle restrictors" or similarly childish terms makes it seem that you have an issue with this style of dress in and of itself. It's like when people who have some sort of prejudice against country folk keep calling GAA "bogball," or anti-Republicans going on about "Shinnerbots" It's unhelpful and it's intentionally antagonistic.
I've been kinda getting the impression that subculture wasn't exactly your Mastermind topic but, yes, skinny jeans were worn by punks in the 1970s. Look at the front cover of the Ramones' epnoymous album - drainpipes all round, and one of them's even wearing a belly top FFS. Sort of on the other end of the spectrum to glam rock as well.
My point regarding Tudorian and Georgian times is that trends come in and out of popularity and what's masculine in one era is outmoded in the next. The reality is that skinny jeans are becoming widely accepted by young males who are not effeminate, such as working-class youths and hip-hop artists. In terms of dress sense, we may well be entering a new Georgian era where tight pants are the norm for men. So you can choose to rage against the dying of the light and look like an old man grumbling about "hippies" who need a haircut, or you can be an adaptable person with a bit of perpective who realises that fashions shift and the reason that these people look strange to you might be that you're now in your 40s (I think?), your brain isn't as plastic as it once was, and things are only going to get progressively weirder.
Don't really see the point about mainstream culture and Jon Travolta. My point was that there have been and are subcultures, some of them rather testosteron-fuelled, where skinny jeans were/are worn. Which suggests that there is nothing inherently unmanly about the pants themselves.
I'm not suggesting that, you're reading into something I didn't imply. Which is why I used the term "macho," a word often used in the pejorative. The point is that hip-hop cluture is about as far from camp and effeminate as you can possibly get.
So you've no interest in learning more about subculture but you'll happily claim that everyone wearing clothes like these is not to be taken seriously due to said clothing choice. Sounds about right.
JuliusCaesar wrote: » Feminism might have come to Irish women, but it certainly hasn't come to Irish men. Who is responsible for the majority of housework and childcare in most households? Even when both partners are working full-time. Which partner tends to have more free time/time to pursue their own interests? How many men are asked Gaybo's favourite question of new TDs (female) - who is looking after your children? even now, 20 and more years later. As regards domestic violence, let us please see a comparison of violence done. In general men are physically stronger than women, so I would imagine that the physical damage/threat done to women is greater. The majority of sexual abuse is done to women and children by men, there is no parity there. Men have always been more likely to abandon their families. Women abandoning their children is much rarer. Men tend to carry out murder/suicide of their families much more frequently than women. As long as a majority of men control access to promotions, there will be less women promoted. Traits that are seen as positive in men are seen as negative in women. Assertive/bitchy, decisive/bossy etc. I like men being men and I like women being women. In all, we have a lot more in common than not. We are all human and we all have feelings. I appreciate hearing men's take on things as I like hearing women's opinions too. Together we are stronger, together and respecting and respectful of each other, valuing each other's contributions we can move forward. Alas, all too often our relationships (in society, rather than as individual relationships/couples) are seen as some sort of competition. Stereotypes are detrimental to individuals.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » The first part of that post just comes off as man hating generalisations.
