Sexism you have personally experienced or have heard of? *READ POST 1*

Carlos Orange

No

Saruhashi wrote: »

We don't see that kind of divide in other fields. Even though STEM fields are dominated by men, women are not excluded from enjoying the benefits of STEM developments.

So why should men not benefit equally from the work of gender studies graduates regardless of the gender of those graduates?

STEM is an academic field. Gender studies seems more like an ideological one.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What I would say is that I see gender equality as releasing men and women from the expectations of previous generations and their gender roles. E.g. the man must be the breadwinner while the woman is the homemaker. Gender equality is about giving people the freedom to choose how to arrange their own affairs. .

Great, but you'll have to explain to me how gender equality and gender studies courses are related.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that the same gender that tends to get actively involved in the topic? And the gender that tends to be more involved in the study of gender issues? And the same gender that actively lobbies government to have their issues addressed?

Wait now. Ok for gender studies but not for STEM? Explain that one?

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote: »

Unconscious bias must be a shockingly pervasive problem in such a group.

It might well be. Careful now, concepts like unconscious bias are often dismissed in these threads. The locals probably won’t want you introducing it as a valid concept.

JRant

psinno wrote: »

STEM is an academic field. Gender studies seems more like an ideological one.

Ain't that the truth. Gender studies is firmly rooted in postmodernist nonsense. Gender is a social construct unless it's to do with trans issues and then it's back to being biological.

The simple fact is that gender study courses are worse than useless. Full of non-repeatable "study" results. It's complete bunk.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As this relates to gender studies and men/women talking part in the courses. Is it very surprising that one gender tends to be more active in gender issues, and that gender is currently more successfully achieving change for the issues most important to them?

Have you considered the way you're framing this?

Men are heavily represented in other areas however the context this is presented in is not that they are "more successful" at it but that the "dominate" it or "oppress" other from participating it.

Areas where men are not represented are areas where men "fail to participate" or "fail to place value on".

Where women are heavily represented it is because they are better, more successful, better suited and have made better choices.

Where women are not represented it is because they are opressed, harrassed, forced out.

Do you see how the above has altered your thinking on this?

Well, that’s your language, not mine. I consider activism and participation to be a good way to achieve change. I don't think I said anything about male dominated... or men failing...

Maybe I should say men successfully achieve minimal participation in gender studies. And successfully win inertia in the areas of concern to them.

It’s an interesting point in general though. I think you’re talking to the wrong person though as I don’t think it’s the language I use.

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well, that’s your language, not mine. I consider activism and participation to be a good way to achieve change. I don't think I said anything about male dominated... or men failing...

Maybe I should say men successfully achieve minimal participation in gender studies. And successfully win inertia in the areas of concern to them.

It’s an interesting point in general though. I think you’re talking to the wrong person though as I don’t think it’s the language I use.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you asking me to convince you to do a gender studies course? That’s not what I’m doing. You can do as you please.

As this relates to gender studies and men/women talking part in the courses. Is it very surprising that one gender tends to be more active in gender issues, and that gender is currently more successfully achieving change for the issues most important to them?

I wasn't making a random unrelated point, I was specifically referring to your own word usage.

I'm not trying to catch you out on anything here, I'm just pointing out you seem to have a particular way of viewing issues concerning men and women that frames their achievements and failures in different ways. That viewpoint is extremely common and is pervasive in society.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

No. It's not even slightly surprising. Clearly if the conversation on gender issues is dominated by women's perspectives then it follows that women would be more successful at achieving goals that are important to them.

Hold up though. I thought this field was changed from "women's studies" to "gender studies"? So why wouldn't people involved in pushing for change in gender issues be pushing equally for change for ALL genders?

The gender of the people doing the pushing should not be relevant. If the push is for gender equality then one gender should not be benefiting more than the others.

Why would men have to take part in the courses at all to see any benefit?

We don't see that kind of divide in other fields. Even though STEM fields are dominated by men, women are not excluded from enjoying the benefits of STEM developments.

So why should men not benefit equally from the work of gender studies graduates regardless of the gender of those graduates?

Ah this faux naivety is beneath you. The course doesn’t lobby government. It provides education to people who presumably go on to lobby for issues that they’re passionate about. The course is probably likely to influence those people but, they’re the people who do the lobbying and activism, not the course itself.

So if only women attend the course then those people are more likely to be actively involved in lobbying etc for issues that are important to them, then there’s your answer.

It never ceases to amaze me that men think men’s issues should be advanced for them. In a world with limited time and resources, nothing happens without someone fighting tooth and nail for it.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

[

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you asking me to convince you to do a gender studies course? That’s not what I’m doing. You can do as you please.

As this relates to gender studies and men/women talking part in the courses. Is it very surprising that one gender tends to be more active in gender issues, and that gender is currently more successfully achieving change for the issues most important to them?

I wasn't making a random unrelated point, I was specifically referring to your own word usage.

I'm not trying to catch you out on anything here, I'm just pointing out you seem to have a particular way of viewing issues concerning men and women that frames their achievements and failures in different ways. That viewpoint is extremely common and is pervasive in society.

I’ll concede the point if you can show where I spoke about men achieving change in negative language. I know I referred to women lobbying successfully in positive terms. I don’t think I do the opposite with men’s issues.

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah this faux naivety is beneath you. The course doesn’t lobby government. It provides education to people who presumably go on to lobby for issues that they’re passionate about. The course is probably likely to influence those people but, they’re the people who do the lobbying and activism, not the course itself.

So if only women attend the course then those people are more likely to be actively involved in lobbying etc for issues that are important to them, then there’s your answer.

It never ceases to amaze me that men think men’s issues should be advanced for them. In a world with limited time and resources, nothing happens without someone fighting tooth and nail for it.

The irony in that sentence... Women often fight tooth and nail so that they don't have to fight 'tooth and nail' for jobs, I'm referring to quota's here of course and 'positive' discrimination.

We should be able to trust those in power to do the right thing.. not just meet the demands of the latest, most vocal lobby group.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

Great, but you'll have to explain to me how gender equality and gender studies courses are related.

How in the name of Jaysus is that my job?
I don’t have to do anything of the sort.

iptba

Some people can get an idea what a full-time course like a Master's in Gender Studies might be like from courses they have taken. I remember hearing that in BESS (for the year I heard about), only a handful of men went on to take sociology after first year as the first year course had been so biased by being so focused on feminism and women as victims. The classes in psychology also seemed to be biased though my impression was they were a bit more grounded in reality than the sociology ones.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Are you asking me to convince you to do a gender studies course? That’s not what I’m doing. You can do as you please.

Please, let's not go through all this again.

No. I am not asking you to convince me to do a gender studies course.

I don't even know where you are getting that idea from.

Ok. I see that you do t want to go a gender studies course but I don’t see what you want me to do. You outlined all the reasons you don’t want to do a gender studies course. So what was the actual question you wanted me to address?

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’ll concede the point if you can show where I spoke about men achieving change in negative language. I know I referred to women lobbying successfully in positive terms. I don’t think I do the opposite with men’s issues.

I'm linking your usage here to the wider viewpoint. I'm not asking you to concede a point, I'm saying it's worth considering if you think along those lines.

I personally find a lot of your posts appear to be backed by thinking that suggests you do. It leads to you talking past other posters that are well meaning because you're looking at the issues from a fundamentally different viewpoint, one in which men always need to do better to share their success or do better to be successful in the first place.

Triceratops Ballet

givyjoe wrote: »

We should be able to trust those in power to do the right thing.. not just meet the demands of the latest, most vocal lobby group.

slightly OT but while we should be able to trust this, in practice that's not how politics works and we all know it. Old people vote in higher numbers so smart politicians court them, sometimes to the detriment of the young. People protest about paying water charges and so now we don't have water charges. It would be lovely if governments were full of people who do the right thing, but that just ain't how it works, so people do have to lobby for the things they want!

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that the same gender that tends to get actively involved in the topic? And the gender that tends to be more involved in the study of gender issues? And the same gender that actively lobbies government to have their issues addressed?

Wait now. Ok for gender studies but not for STEM? Explain that one?

Calm down Strawmannus-Maximus
Is it ok for one and not the other? I certainly didn’t say it is.

Explain it yourself.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

The irony in that sentence... Women often fight tooth and nail so that they don't have to fight 'tooth and nail' for jobs, I'm referring to quota's here of course and 'positive' discrimination.

We should be able to trust those in power to do the right thing.. not just meet the demands of the latest, most vocal lobby group.

Do you find it that ironic? Ok.

You’re a man with limited time. If you were to get actively involved in these gender issues, would you be more likely to pick a topic that would benefit men or women?

Shockingly naive to think policy isn’t shaped by lobby groups. Why on earth would such groups exist if they didn’t have some ability to influence policy?

iptba

"El_Duderino wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me that men think men’s issues should be advanced for them. In a world with limited time and resources, nothing happens without someone fighting tooth and nail for it.

A few years ago, there was a man attending a London university who wanted a gender studies course that was less focused on women and feminism with more of a focus on men's issues. I will have to look up his name later, maybe Tom Sharpe?? Anyway he crowd-funded to take a legal case. I and many men (and probably some women too) donated.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Calm down Strawmannus-Maximus
Is it ok for one and not the other? I certainly didn’t say it is.

Explain it yourself.

How about its either ok for either both or neither?

givyjoe

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you find it that ironic? Ok.

You’re a man with limited time. If you were to get actively involved in these gender issues, would you be more likely to pick a topic that would benefit men or women?

Shockingly naive to think policy isn’t shaped by lobby groups. Why on earth would such groups exist if they didn’t have some ability to influence policy?

Yes I do, shocking that you don't. I also find your predictable positions on every topic in TGC tiring.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I’ll concede the point if you can show where I spoke about men achieving change in negative language. I know I referred to women lobbying successfully in positive terms. I don’t think I do the opposite with men’s issues.

I'm linking your usage here to the wider viewpoint. I'm not asking you to concede a point, I'm saying it's worth considering if you think along those lines.

I personally find a lot of your posts appear to be backed by thinking that suggests you do. It leads to you talking past other posters that are well meaning because you're looking at the issues from a fundamentally different viewpoint, one in which men always need to do better to share their success or do better to be successful in the first place.

For the third time, I get your point and I don’t think I speak about men in the way you’re describing in a different way to women.

I often challenge posters who whine about some successful campaign by feminists but wouldn’t support a movement to help men in a similar way. The mental health ones are a great example. They give out that there aren’t enough mental health services for men then when there is a campaign, they denigrate it.

I pointed out a positive example of a celebrity throwing his weight behind a mental health service and there was opposition to him on various grounds. I spoke about it as positive even if not Perfect.

I don’t think I talk about male success in a negative way/female success in a positive way, but you’re sure to see that attitude if you look around these threads.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote: »

Yes I do, shocking that you don't. I also find your predictable positions on every topic in TGC tiring.

Then you do t understand how government works in reality. That’s ok, most people don’t know how it works.

Let me assure you that lobbying can have an impact on government.

Your positions are predictable too you’d disagree if I said the sky is blue. Look at your last post. You actually said you don’t expect lobbying to shape government policy (I’m actually pretty sure you do know that’s how it works but I think you’re arguing for the sake of it).

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote: »

"El_Duderino wrote:

It never ceases to amaze me that men think men’s issues should be advanced for them. In a world with limited time and resources, nothing happens without someone fighting tooth and nail for it.

A few years ago, there was a man attending a London university who wanted a gender studies course that was less focused on women and feminism with more of a focus on men's issues. I will have to look up his name later, maybe Tom Sharpe?? Anyway he crowd-funded to take a legal case. I and many men (and probably some women too) donated.

I think the article linked above mentioned him. They said he sued LSE as he thought the course was anti men. The case didn’t win. I don’t know any more about it than what the article said.

That’s the sort of activism that can achieve real change over time. I don’t know the details of the case though.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Calm down Strawmannus-Maximus
Is it ok for one and not the other? I certainly didn’t say it is.

Explain it yourself.

How about its either ok for either both or neither?

It’s not a topic I raised at all.

Normal rules apply to this, the same as everything else. No idea why you’re asking me about this.

To put your mind at ease, it say it’s not great for either course or either gender

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I often challenge posters who whine about some successful campaign by feminists but wouldn’t support a movement to help men in a similar way. The mental health ones are a great example. They give out that there aren’t enough mental health services for men then when there is a campaign, they denigrate it.

Are you referring to the "man up" campaign here or something else?

givyjoe

sharper wrote: »

Are you referring to the "man up" campaign here or something else?

I notice he doesn't refer to women as 'whining' when they speak on boards about issues affecting them, regardless of whether they have specifically 'done something about it' or not. Interesting repeated choice of words.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote: »

Are you referring to the "man up" campaign here or something else?

Something else. In the last few days I brought up a campaign by a male celebrity who is publicising a mental health and suicide charity. Good news, right? Wrong.

One poster thought we needed to know whether the guy was purely interested in the charity or whether he would gain anything by publicising it. Someone else called it virtue signalling.

Same kind of thing when a celebrity Niall Breslin spoke about mental health. He was called a pussy who probably has sympathy periods with his girlfriend. That’s on these threads alone.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Something else. In the last few days I brought up a campaign by a male celebrity who is publicising a mental health and suicide charity. Good news, right? Wrong.

One poster thought we needed to know whether the guy was purely interested in the charity or whether he would gain anything by publicising it. Someone else called it virtue signalling.

Same kind of thing when a celebrity Niall Breslin spoke about mental health. He was called a pussy who probably has sympathy periods with his girlfriend. That’s on these threads alone.

So? Some people had opinions on something that are probably wrong. Now what?

I don't get it. Am I supposed to condemn every opinion that isn't right?

Maybe this guy was doing it for publicity and was virtue signalling. Maybe he wasn't. Is it even remotely possible? Sure.

I don't really like Niall Breslin and I do think he is in it for the publicity and virtue signalling BUT somebody has to publicize these issues surrounding mental health so it's OK. Is that OK with you? Am I allowed to hold this opinion?

backspin.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It never ceases to amaze me that men think men’s issues should be advanced for them. In a world with limited time and resources, nothing happens without someone fighting tooth and nail for it.

That's true, feminists know this which is why they react so badly to men's interests groups. But it will take sensible men's interests groups to raise issues facing boys and men. And they will need to be as persistent as the women's rights organisations.

Saruhashi

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah this faux naivety is beneath you. The course doesn’t lobby government. It provides education to people who presumably go on to lobby for issues that they’re passionate about. The course is probably likely to influence those people but, they’re the people who do the lobbying and activism, not the course itself.

So if only women attend the course then those people are more likely to be actively involved in lobbying etc for issues that are important to them, then there’s your answer.

It never ceases to amaze me that men think men’s issues should be advanced for them. In a world with limited time and resources, nothing happens without someone fighting tooth and nail for it.

If the course is gender studies then shouldn't they be prepping graduates to lobby for issues on behalf of all genders?

If a man attends the course but then decides to lobby for women's issues... should he be allowed to do that?

I think it's fair to assume that graduates from a gender studies class would lobby for all genders.

So, I am a man who wants someone to fight tooth and nail for men's issues. Seems selfish, I agree. Hang on though we have these colleges producing graduates from Gender Studies classes year after year. Maybe they can help?

Nah, they will only help women because they are women and if I want help I should get into gender studies and do it myself.

You know, when I go to the doctor and don't really expect to be told to go and teach myself medical science and help myself because the doctor will only treat patients that share a specific commonality with her.

So women are going into gender studies and coming out equipped to fight for gender related issues. However, are only willing to actually fight for one gender. That seems suspicious.

Surely if men are 50% of the population then men's issues should be 50% of the curriculum? Does this mean that gender studies graduates are only willing to put 50% of what they've learned into practice?

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

One poster thought we needed to know whether the guy was purely interested in the charity or whether he would gain anything by publicising it. Someone else called it virtue signalling.

Why are the opinions of random posters relevant? Unless you're talking about a particular individual or some group expressing contradictory opinions over time then it's just noise. If your standard is just opinions expressed on a thread then you can both support and reject anything you feel like.

ligerdub

I posted about Brezzie (wasn't this thread) and how lucrative his move was regarding mental health issues and his promotion of same. I didn't buy his schtick and I stand by that view.

I don't think the topic had anything to do with men's issues or the likes. I really don't see the relevance of those posts to this particular thread either. I also don't recall me, or anyone else, being elected the spokesperson for all men. It's a point in a discussion about a specific person. It doesn't mean that the point is true of all people promoting a cause, nor does it mean that a person matching a specific demographic is representative of the views of all the people in that demographic. It's a fairly foolish assumption.

Maybe I should have posted it in the Opinion piece of the Irish Independent so that we'd know that it wasn't to be taken seriously.

That's all I'm going to say about it.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

So? Some people had opinions on something that are probably wrong. Now what?

I don't get it. Am I supposed to condemn every opinion that isn't right?

Maybe this guy was doing it for publicity and was virtue signalling. Maybe he wasn't. Is it even remotely possible? Sure.

I'm not telling you what to do. I'm commenting on what actually happened.

Saruhashi wrote:

I don't really like Niall Breslin and I do think he is in it for the publicity and virtue signalling BUT somebody has to publicize these issues surrounding mental health so it's OK. Is that OK with you? Am I allowed to hold this opinion?

I'll consider the matter and let you know whether or not you're allowed to hold that opinion. ðŸ˜

I found the purity test fascinating. Instead of just being glad that there's another voice advocating for an important men's rights issue, there's some kind of purity test applied. As if the advertisement doesn't work if he advocate is being paid for their work.

That's the bit that I find strange. Seeking to snatch failure from the jaws of a victory. It's allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

El_Duderino 09

givyjoe wrote:

I notice he doesn't refer to women as 'whining' when they speak on boards about issues affecting them, regardless of whether they have specifically 'done something about it' or not. Interesting repeated choice of words.

I don't really get involved in women's issues but if I came across women griping about the lack of action of an issue. Then when there is action on the issue they applied some random critique to denigrate those who are actually doing the action. Then I'd say it was whinging alright. Open and shut case.

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't really get involved in women's issues but if I came across women griping about the lack of action of an issue. Then when there is action on the issue they applied some random critique to denigrate those who are actually doing the action. Then I'd say it was whinging alright. Open and shut case.

These are totally different people. Neither men nor women are a hive mind.

El_Duderino 09

Saruhashi wrote:

If the course is gender studies then shouldn't they be prepping graduates to lobby for issues on behalf of all genders?

Not really. That's hardly their job it's their job to educate on theory, history etc. Why do you think they should be preparing people to lobby?

Saruhashi wrote:

If a man attends the course but then decides to lobby for women's issues... should he be allowed to do that?

Allowed by whom? Very strange question. Why would there be restrictions on what topics people can and can't lobby for?

Saruhashi wrote:

I think it's fair to assume that graduates from a gender studies class would lobby for all genders.

I suppose so. Do we know if that's what happens now of not? I'd be surprised if there arent women graduates working as part of the men's issues.

Saruhashi wrote:

So, I am a man who wants someone to fight tooth and nail for men's issues. Seems selfish, I agree. Hang on though we have these colleges producing graduates from Gender Studies classes year after year. Maybe they can help?

Nah, they will only help women because they are women and if I want help I should get into gender studies and do it myself.

Well, I asked another poster this question but they didn't bother to answer so I'll see what you think. I presume you're a man with limited free time. If you were to get involved in activism for a gender related issue close to your heart, would it most likely be a men's issue or a women's issue?

People are free from advocate for whatever causes they are most passionate about. I really don't get your issue.

Saruhashi wrote:

You know, when I go to the doctor and don't really expect to be told to go and teach myself medical science and help myself because the doctor will only treat patients that share a specific commonality with her.

Ah you're gone wild now. One is individual people choosing to get involved in activism, the other is paying for a doctor's service. Hardly the same

Saruhashi wrote:

So women are going into gender studies and coming out equipped to fight for gender related issues. However, are only willing to actually fight for one gender. That seems suspicious.

Is that the case? I haven't seen anyone demonstrate that women only advocate for women but I'd say that in all likelihood most people will advocate for issues that are close to them. So it's as suspicious as a man advocating for men's issues.

Saruhashi wrote:

Surely if men are 50% of the population then men's issues should be 50% of the curriculum? Does this mean that gender studies graduates are only willing to put 50% of what they've learned into practice?

No idea. I already said I don't have any info on the courses. You're asking me questions as if I'm advertising them. I've no idea what percentage of the course content they put into action. I've already said I don't think the courses teach lobbying skills. They probably focus on theory and history etc.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote:

Why are the opinions of random posters relevant? Unless you're talking about a particular individual or some group expressing contradictory opinions over time then it's just noise. If your standard is just opinions expressed on a thread then you can both support and reject anything you feel like.

Because it's the same group of posters were talking about. The same group who will say there aren't any initiatives for men's issues will dismiss a men initiative for random reasons and then go back to saying there aren't any initiatives for men's issues. That's victim mentality.

El_Duderino 09

ligerdub wrote:

I posted about Brezzie (wasn't this thread) and how lucrative his move was regarding mental health issues and his promotion of same. I didn't buy his schtick and I stand by that view.

His schtick was publicising an issue that I think is very important to men. Suicide and mental health are very serious men's issues. That's he message. Whether or not he he makes a few bob from doing it is neither here nor there. The focus for me isn't Breslin, it's the fact that there's a man publicising such an important men's issues.

ligerdub wrote:

I don't think the topic had anything to do with men's issues or the likes. I really don't see the relevance of those posts to this particular thread either. I also don't recall me, or anyone else, being elected the spokesperson for all men. It's a point in a discussion about a specific person. It doesn't mean that the point is true of all people promoting a cause, nor does it mean that a person matching a specific demographic is representative of the views of all the people in that demographic. It's a fairly foolish assumption.

You're the spokesperson for yourself that's enough.

I don't assume anyone is representative of everyone. I also think it's moronic to assume that if Breslin doesn't represent me then he can't represent other people. The idea of denigrating someone who's doing good for others but isn't targeting me, is selfish and idiotic and above all, is counter productive to the men's rights in general.

ligerdub wrote:

Maybe I should have posted it in the Opinion piece of the Irish Independent so that we'd know that it wasn't to be taken seriously.

Lol

ligerdub wrote:

That's all I'm going to say about it.

Ah no, you're great craic. And someday someone will explain why activists can't also benefit themselves while advertising a worthy cause. Thought it might be yourself, alas that's all you have to say about it.

iptba

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I don't really get involved in women's issues but if I came across women griping about the lack of action of an issue. Then when there is action on the issue they applied some random critique to denigrate those who are actually doing the action. Then I'd say it was whinging alright. Open and shut case.

I'm pretty sure I didn't express any opinion on Bressie but I don't see everyone should have to agree with any one individual who wants to deal with an issue. People can have very different views about how to deal with issues: the whole of politics is about advocating for trying to run the country better but people have very different views on how to do it.

This happens in feminism: different people would have different views on what should be done with prostitution, for example. I don't know why if feminists can disagree, people interested in men's issues have to agree and support anyone who comes forward saying they want to deal with an issue.

tritium

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not telling you what to do. I'm commenting on what actually happened.

I'll consider the matter and let you know whether or not you're allowed to hold that opinion. ðŸ˜

I found the purity test fascinating. Instead of just being glad that there's another voice advocating for an important men's rights issue, there's some kind of purity test applied. As if the advertisement doesn't work if he advocate is being paid for their work.

That's the bit that I find strange. Seeking to snatch failure from the jaws of a victory. It's allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.

Thats an interesting view on the 'purity test'. It implies that mens rights commentators should be taken at their bona fides by men who care about these issues rather than being open to questioning or challenge. It raises a few uncomfortable questions unfortunately that id appreciate your view on.

-should we be just grateful that ' that there's another voice advocating for an important men's rights issue' and not subject it to scrutiny?
- would you suggest we apply the same test to other mens rights advocates, for example Paul Elam?
- do you believe the feminist movement is more flawed in this regard given how sections of it have ostracized womens rights advocates and self declared feminists such as Erin Pizzey and Christina Hoff Sommers? ('Purity test?')
-if the bona fides later prove to be false are those who went along without question blameless down the line?
-do you believe mens rights should be a consistent hive mind on things like that or is debate healthy?

Zulu

No

iptba wrote: »

I don't know why if feminists can disagree, people interested in men's issues have to agree and support anyone who comes forward saying they want to deal with an issue.

Of course they don't, (s)he's just looking to build a really ****ty straw-man.

It's pathetic really at this point.

El_Duderino 09

iptba wrote:

I'm pretty sure I didn't express any opinion on Bressie but I don't see everyone should have to agree with any one individual who wants to deal with an issue. People can have very different views about how to deal with issues: the whole of politics is about advocating for trying to run the country better but people have very different views on how to do it.

Oh here, for the umpteenth time, I'm not asking you to agree or disagree with anything. I'm relaying what actually happened and what was said about the topic in these threads.

iptba wrote:

This happens in feminism: different people would have different views on what should be done with prostitution, for example. I don't know why if feminists can disagree, people interested in men's issues have to agree and support anyone who comes forward saying they want to deal with an issue.

I was shocked that the only opinion that was voiced in favour of those advocates was my own and the opposition was plentiful.

I was shocked that people wouldn't firstly be glad to see the thing that they have been pointing out the absence of, before then critiquing the details.

Instead the narrative went from ' there are no efforts to promote men's issues-bloody feminists' to, 'oh Breslin at it again. Promoting men's mental health and maybe making a profit, the bastard'. Then back to 'you don't see anyone promoting men's issues-bloody feminists'.

El_Duderino 09

Zulu wrote:

Of course they don't, (s)he's just looking to build a really ****ty straw-man. It's pathetic really at this point.

I didn't make the point Iptba is talking about so yes, it's a strawman alright. Calling him pathetic is a bit harsh though.

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was shocked that the only opinion that was voiced in favour of those advocates was my own and the opposition was plentiful.

I was shocked that people wouldn't firstly be glad to see the thing that they have been pointing out the absence of, before then critiquing the details.

Instead the narrative went from ' there are no efforts to promote men's issues-bloody feminists' to, 'oh Breslin at it again. Promoting men's mental health and maybe making a profit, the bastard'. Then back to 'you don't see anyone promoting men's issues-bloody feminists'.

Are you easily shocked?

Your expectations here are confounding. You've made numerous references to comments others have made, have not made, have been responded to and have not been responded to.

You have a very long list of rules you expect a collection of unassociated people on a thread on an internet forum to comply with before their collective sincerity is deemed acceptable.

El_Duderino 09

tritium wrote:

Thats an interesting view on the 'purity test'. It implies that mens rights commentators should be taken at their bona fides by men who care about these issues rather than being open to questioning or challenge. It raises a few uncomfortable questions unfortunately that id appreciate your view on.

I don't think it implies that specifically. Some things should probably be scrutinized alright. Whether or not they're also gaining something while doing something to advance men's rights is a very minor issue for me. It might be completely irrelevant. I definitely can't understand why people would zero in on it as the main thing they look at.

tritium wrote:

-should we be just grateful that ' that there's another voice advocating for an important men's rights issue' and not subject it to scrutiny? - would you suggest we apply the same test to other mens rights advocates, for example Paul Elam? - do you believe the feminist movement is more flawed in this regard given how sections of it have ostracized womens rights advocates and self declared feminists such as Erin Pizzey and Christina Hoff Sommers? ('Purity test?') -if the bona fides later prove to be false are those who went along without question blameless down the line? -do you believe mens rights should be a consistent hive mind on things like that or is debate healthy?

Scrutiny about the message and the goal and the ultimate impact is normal. Scrutiny of whether or not his heart is pure and unbesmirched by filthy profit or other gain, is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.

No idea who Paul Elam is. I see he's a big player in men's rights but I don't know anything about him. What specifically do you mean? I'd say the same applies to him as I've outlined above. The message and it's impact are important. Whether he turns a profit for his work isn't important. Neither is how long his hair grows or whether he prefers cheese case or chocolate cake.

No idea who Erin Prizzey and Christina Hoff Sommers are. I dont know enough about the movements to make an informed opinion.

How can the bona fides be false? All I care about is whether the person has a positive impact on men and their health. If someone listens to Breslin and is encouraged to seek help, then it turns out he was only doing the work to sell his book, does the person he helped have to give back the help they received?

The hive mind question is rhetorical, right?

What are your answers to those questions you asked?

ligerdub

ligerdub wrote: »

I posted about Brezzie (wasn't this thread) and how lucrative his move was regarding mental health issues and his promotion of same. I didn't buy his schtick and I stand by that view.

I don't think the topic had anything to do with men's issues or the likes. I really don't see the relevance of those posts to this particular thread either. I also don't recall me, or anyone else, being elected the spokesperson for all men. It's a point in a discussion about a specific person. It doesn't mean that the point is true of all people promoting a cause, nor does it mean that a person matching a specific demographic is representative of the views of all the people in that demographic. It's a fairly foolish assumption.

Maybe I should have posted it in the Opinion piece of the Irish Independent so that we'd know that it wasn't to be taken seriously.

That's all I'm going to say about it.

_

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote:

Are you easily shocked?

Yeah. A forum about men's rights which spends a lot of time discussing the lack of services for men, someone points out an example of the exact thing that was discussed as lacking, and the posters line up to criticise it. Yes that's really surprising to me. Would you expect that to happen?

sharper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. A forum about men's rights which spends a lot of time discussing the lack of services for men, someone points out an example of the exact thing that was discussed as lacking, and the posters line up to criticise it. Yes that's really surprising to me. Would you expect that to happen?

I wouldn't have any particular set of expectations. This is a discussion forum, it's not an advocacy group. It's populated by people coming in at random to comment on things that bother them or whatever is on their mind.

I don't see anything particularly noteworthy about the campaign you're referencing. Are you expecting people to come and comment about how great it is that male mental health got a mention at all?

If the campaign was especially well done, unusually widespread or generally struck a chord with the populace you'd see far more discussion around it.

That doesn't mean nobody cares about mental health, they just don't have a lot to say about that particular awareness campaign.

El_Duderino 09

sharper wrote:

That doesn't mean nobody cares about mental health, they just don't have a lot to say about that particular awareness campaign.

Yeah I suppose. Given how much they have to say about it when a feminist campaign is successful, I thought there would be great fanfare when a male campaign is also widely publicised. But that's not the case atall-atall. The men's rights thread seems like the kind of place where people would care about men's rights being advanced but it actually seems more interested in discussing how men's rights aren't being advanced. Even to the point of apathy towards evidence to the contrary.

Anyway, back to the original point, it's hardly surprising that a course that's mostly women will have mostly women putting the education gleaned from that course, into action.

Both denigrating the course and it's content, then complaining that the graduates aren't doing enough for you, is amusing if nothing else.

Will I Am Not

I read a post on a local Facebook group today where a woman complained that a teenage boy ran across the street in front of her car with his pants down and genitals exposed.

First comment was from a middle aged woman “Put up the dash cam footage so we can share it” cue lots of other women with the likes and smiley face reactions.

Some guy called her out on it, asking what would happen if a middle aged man made that comment about a teenage girl and he got an earful.