Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

Outlaw Pete

Deleted User wrote: »

the term "toxic masculinity" was bandied around like it was a certain factor in the students behavior.

....some of these terms are being accepted by more than social media fiends. There were a number of the women at the meeting who were highly-educated and I'd thought previously as being very intelligent people.

Couldn't agree more.

I have to laugh when I see people on here saying that sort of stuff is just Internet nonsense. It bloody well is not. Maybe I just keep younger company than most on here here (given that many of those I work with tend to be early twenty somethings) but I too hear these phrases bandied about all the time, along also with many of the views and opinions being expressed regularly by the likes of LON.

I think the notion that everyone is rolling their eyes at the likes of LON and Blindboy is wishful thinking. I attend a lot of film related talks and workshops and these attitudes permeate them. Often rounds of applause will follow. I'm telling you, this stuff is pervasive and it's showing no signs of being faddish or relenting. On the contrary.

Sure even Emma Thompson came out with the term toxic masculinity a few months back and she's not someone I would have had down for talking bollox. Always seemed to have her head a lot tighter screwed on than the likes of Streep anyway, perhaps I was wrong but I don't think so, I just feel this crap is becoming more accepted as having basis in fact than ever before.

https://twitter.com/SabineRennefanz/status/945954076457566208


So Harvey's problem wasn't that he was a bully and a sleaze who abused his position, it's that he had a 'hyper masculinity' problem.

LLMMLL

Sexual harrassment is for the most part committed by males. It's a specifically male problem that is deserving of a term to describe it. There's no point pretending it's a people in general problem when it's actually not. Anyone is justified using the term "toxic masculinity" when describing Harvey Weinstein because that behaviour is confined to males.

As for the community centre group maybe the young men were the instigators of the behaviour that the young women were involved in. And no, before anyone says it, i don't believe mens are responsible for the bad behaviour of women in general. But the psychologist or other people involved may have less bias and seen the situation more clearly in this particular case.

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno. The toxic masculinity thing kinda fits with the current craze about psychology "definitions". I know it's not one but a lot of people don't seem to.
*snipped so I don't make this post too long*

"Language structures consciousness". We are deeply influenced by the words/phrases we use (or hear) and what we, ourselves, believe them to mean.

There's an ongoing case (here in Ireland) which I don't want to identify regarding a gang of girls. One girl, 16 (which would make em women in some countries) is accused of beating the snot out of another, with help from friends.
While the victim at the center of the case didn't deserve the beating, she's also been photographed with an ankle monitoring bracelet. Seems like it was a retaliation.

So there is a definite element of violence among both sexes, and I've met many a dim bulb who ignores it. (From both genders). I would argue that it starts at home-and we're seeing so many broken homes now, without decent role models, that kids are seeking out their own role models-and meeting up with the wrong kinds of people. But there's also an element of ignorance-people are ignoring the signs because they have an ideological propaganda going on in their heads. And there has nearly always been a complete ignorance of female violence. For example, within lesbian relationships, there is a significantly higher rate of domestic abuse-compared to heterosexual relationships-but that is never discussed. (Also high among gay couples, just not at the same rate as lesbian couples).

The 'educated' folks you describe are often completely ignorant of actual events-they merely go by books. If they experienced the circumstances you have experienced, first hand, I'd imagine they'd stop proposing a completely bogus ideology and deal with the problems.
But they won't, and instead it's going to be a case of 'punish the males, ignore the females' and that's going to create a problem where there was none, and allow the female problem escalate.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Couldn't agree more.

I have to laugh when I see people on here saying that sort of stuff is just Internet nonsense. It bloody well is not. Maybe I just keep younger company than most on here here (given that many of those I work with tend to be early twenty somethings) but I too hear these phrases bandied about all the time, along also with many of the views and opinions being expressed regularly by the likes of LON.

I think the notion that everyone is rolling their eyes at the likes of LON and Blindboy is wishful thinking. I attend a lot of film related talks and workshops and these attitudes permeate them. Often rounds of applause will follow. I'm telling you, this stuff is pervasive and it's showing no signs of being faddish or relenting. On the contrary.

Sure even Emma Thompson came out with the term toxic masculinity a few months back and she's not someone I would have had down for talking bollox. Always seemed to have her head a lot tighter screwed on than the likes of Streep anyway, perhaps I was wrong but I don't think so, I just feel this crap is becoming more accepted as having basis in fact than ever before.

So Harvey's problem wasn't that he was a bully and a sleaze who abused his position, it's that he had a 'hyper masculinity' problem.

Oh Jesus...Emma, nooooo....God. Harvey was an abomination, a sociopath and a psychopath who people like Emma Thompson allowed to function. So now she covers her butt using this terminology.
We saw an awful lot of people trying to 'explain' Harvey, but instead they further proved themselves at fault and partially responsible.

There's a recent article by James Lindsay which discusses feminist theory, and why nobody gives a damn about it. You'll have the 'isolated' dumb idiots who don't understand the human condition, but you'll also have the normal folks who are like 'ummm...that doesn't make sense'.

http://quillette.com/2018/01/02/no-one-cares-feminist-theory/

Lindsay even boils it down why nobody cares.

It’s properly esoteric like many well-developed academic disciplines.
-It seems to describe an alternate universe that looks kind of like ours but fantastically distorted in a way that makes it hard to suspend one’s disbelief (and this is consequential).
-It involves tragically two-dimensional Manichean struggles of good (allegedly emancipatory feminism) against evil (human nature, masculinity, men, “patriarchy,” women being themselves, “oppression,” science, pornography, media portrayals of essentially everything, emojis, and so on).
-It sounds like conspiracy theories (because it utilizes several, such as “patriarchy,” “hegemonic masculinity,” “rape culture,” and “hegemonic femininity”).
-It gets presented in obscurantist technical jargon (like that you only disagree because of your “privilege-preserving epistemic pushback”) and its own specialized colloquial language that excludes the uninitiated.
-It’s filled to the brim with confusing turf wars (materialist/Marxist feminist, radical feminist, intersectional feminist, gender critical feminist; liberal feminist).
-It goes almost completely unread, not only by everyone outside the field, but also by almost everyone inside the field too (more than 80% of its papers do not receive a single citation).
-It absolutely refuses to listen to anybody else.

I've similar experiences with late teens, early 20 year olds-you get the odd one who believes that crap, the rest are far from it. Even in secondary schools, teenaged girls, challenge LON on her views-and her man-hating. So I think we are discounting the intelligence of people.

As you said though-you visit film workshops. Those are notoriously blinkered-they consider 'film' to be Ingmar Bergman and Sergei Eisenstein, among other foreign films with subtitles-ignoring Hollywood. Those are fine films, but they don't make money-and if they don't make money, that means nobody's willing to pay money to see them. Look at the recent craziness surrounding Ready Player One-Twitter folks had condemned the film (cos the book sucked) - but it's made and is continuing to make money.
The film's they, and LON, champion-nobody wants to see them. Ghostbusters 2016-it flopped. Amy Schumer's films-less and less returns every time, with last two films flopping.
Meanwhile they ignore actual well made, intelligent filmmaking

If people had read 'feminist' thinkers as being accurate-Trump would not have won. I think that has angered them more-but they're more like the sting of a dying wasp.

Outlaw Pete

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sexual harrassment is for the most part committed by males. It's a specifically male problem that is deserving of a term to describe it. There's no point pretending it's a people in general problem when it's actually not.

That's a strawman argument there, chief, suggested nothing of the sort.

Anyone is justified using the term "toxic masculinity" when describing Harvey Weinstein because that behaviour is confined to males.

Well, by that logic, false rape allegations are caused by 'toxic femininity' as that behaviour is confined to females.

Penny dropped yet? Doubt it.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sexual harrassment is for the most part committed by males. It's a specifically male problem that is deserving of a term to describe it. There's no point pretending it's a people in general problem when it's actually not. Anyone is justified using the term "toxic masculinity" when describing Harvey Weinstein because that behaviour is confined to males.

You repeatedly contradict yourself. Behavior that is, for the most part, committed by males, but it's behavior specific to males? You're tying yourself i in knots trying not to sound sexist but... total fail.

Sexual harassment is not something solely committed by males, and is committed by women too. The only difference is the perception as to what constitutes sexual harassment, and whether men are bothered by such behavior.

As for the community centre group maybe the young men were the instigators of the behaviour that the young women were involved in. And no, before anyone says it, i don't believe mens are responsible for the bad behaviour of women in general. But the psychologist or other people involved may have less bias and seen the situation more clearly in this particular case.

Wow. Don't you realise how sexist and unreasonable that is?

givyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

You repeatedly contradict yourself. Behavior that is, for the most part, committed by males, but it's behavior specific to males? You're tying yourself i in knots trying not to sound sexist but... total fail.

Sexual harassment is not something solely committed by males, and is committed by women too. The only difference is the perception as to what constitutes sexual harassment, and whether men are bothered by such behavior.



Wow. Don't you realise how sexist and unreasonable that is?

Axe... to... grind... :eek:


Not you of course!

professore

Grayson wrote: »

He flaws are amplified because he trashed a bus with people inside. People who got cut with glass. That's not because people want to see him fail, that's because of his own actions. And those actions aren't excusable.
Neither of us can say for certain how much support he would have gotten in a rape trail but I think his fans probably would have been just as loyal as the rugby players fans who supported the players. I see no evidence to suggest otherwise.

Don't get me wrong, it was deplorable behaviour. Just saying that it doesn't make him a bad role model for one mistake, a publicity stunt gone wrong. He's human like everyone else.

professore

mzungu wrote: »

I would have to disagree here. It's always a bad idea to fight eejitry with eejitry. Plus, the narrative du jour in the media (opinion columnists and some radio commentators etc) is "toxic masculinity" as a go-to for everything from murder to jaywalking. The media have latched onto this from the US and it sells. It will go out of fashion sooner or later.

I think (hope) most people realise that it is a BS term and are able to spot the no-so subtle stoking of the gender wars fire when it gets trotted out.

I think Klaz was being facetious. Hope so anyway!

johnnyskeleton

mzungu wrote: »

I think (hope) most people realise that it is a BS term and are able to spot the no-so subtle stoking of the gender wars fire when it gets trotted out.

Having heard it in real life said by well educated and otherwise normal people, Im not so sure. While I take your point about not fighting idiocy with further idiocy, the scenario is that this narrative is going largely unchecked.

Ive heard it said that the reason it goes unchecked is because it is considered unmanly by society to stand up for men. Also men are taught to indulge the complaints of women but both men and women are taught to deride men who complain.

Some patriarchy weve built for ourselves lads. I sometimes feel like feminism is the school bully who grabs your hand, hits you in the face with your own hand and says "stop punching yourself".

Or looked at another way, toxic masculinity is the original victim blaming. We tell men not to be men and when tbey dont conform to the standards du jour we call them toxic.

cantdecide

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno. The toxic masculinity thing kinda fits with the current craze about psychology "definitions". I know it's not one but a lot of people don't seem to.

The societally sanctioned targeting of masculinity, boys and young men is just as toxic as the kind of behaviour they object to but ultimately harms boys and vulnerable young men, not the subjects of their criticism. The males and females that engage with this antisocial behaviour couldn't give a damn about what pseudo-psychological mumbo-jumbo label is attached to it.

professore

LLMMLL wrote: »

Sexual harrassment is for the most part committed by males. It's a specifically male problem that is deserving of a term to describe it. There's no point pretending it's a people in general problem when it's actually not. Anyone is justified using the term "toxic masculinity" when describing Harvey Weinstein because that behaviour is confined to males.

As for the community centre group maybe the young men were the instigators of the behaviour that the young women were involved in. And no, before anyone says it, i don't believe mens are responsible for the bad behaviour of women in general. But the psychologist or other people involved may have less bias and seen the situation more clearly in this particular case.

What's wrong with you? Have you never seen ****ty behavior from teenage girls and young women? Or older women too??? Really????? They need men to convince them to do it? What kind of ridiculous nonsense is this???? Have you lived under a stone your whole life?

professore

professore wrote: »

I think Klaz was being facetious. Hope so anyway!

facetious? why>? Nothing I said is offensive, out of line or inaccurate.

I am genuinely tired of this attitude that men should just take the sexism that is being directed at our gender. Why? Just because we're men? If not that, then because it will simply go away in time?

But will it go away in time? Any evidence to support that belief? During my adult life, sexist remarks towards men regarding "male" behavior have increased dramatically, and it's not just in the media.

Ignoring Feminism in the US Academia allowed it to flourish and essentially take over. So, avoiding the issue didn't work there. And we can see the movements from metoo, weinstein, the Belfast case, where the behavior of a few are being used to paint our whole gender... and we should just take it?

Why? It doesn't work. If you remain silent about the stupidity of the philosophy behind these movements, you give automatic approval for them to spread, and become part of society on the common level.

Nah. I can't agree with this grin and bear it mentality anymore. It's not disappearing, it's not staying solely with a few nutty feminists or social media, and it is spreading into mainstream society. Without resistance, it will also make it into our educational system.

Nope. I'm not being facetious. I'm sick to the hilt of simply accepting sexism.

gmisk

M85 wrote: »

<snip>

I am not sure you are in the right thread.....

Outlaw Pete

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Does Louise O'Neill think Kanye is a Woke Bae?

She did, but now that he's jumped on the MAGA train, I'd say she won't.

Indeed, it's amazing how quick the liberal media in America will tear you asunder if you go off script.

Check the following out from 3m 30seconds in....... unbe-fcuking-lievable. Just imagine Jimmy Kimmel/Fallon doing and saying similar about Leslie Jones, for example.

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

Boom_Bap

Kanye is a genius, he's getting exactly the response that he wants. He's fired off a few tweets, got every radio station/blogger/vlogger/tv show/etc talking about him, has other artists talking about him... all 1 month away from a slew of music releases.

Also, you can see that there was a snippet of a song 'leaked' to TMZ that is getting airplay now in the middle of all this.
When I say leaked, he actually invited TMZ into his studio and done it for them.
He's dropping another song this week as well which is getting loads of FREE advertising for.

I think there is another runner release as well. He has said in the past how powerful twitter is.

So essentially, he is letting everybody else market his upcoming releases and get a buzz going.

In this soundbite society we live in, he knows nobody is going to care about what he has said once the music starts rolling out.

He just needs to endure public backlash for a few weeks, but h'e been doing that for years now, so no skin off his nose.

Genius.

FREE PROMOTION AND ADVERTISING!! And he is not even saying anything that he hasn't said before.

LLMMLL

professore wrote: »

What's wrong with you? Have you never seen ****ty behavior from teenage girls and young women? Or older women too??? Really????? They need men to convince them to do it? What kind of ridiculous nonsense is this???? Have you lived under a stone your whole life?

I specifically said that was not what I believed. But in the case given by klaz I'm more inclined to believe the trained psychologist rather than a poster who is highly active in these gender type threads.

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She did, but now that he's jumped on the MAGA train, I'd say she won't.

Indeed, it's amazing how quick the liberal media in America will tear you asunder if you go off script.

Check the following out from 3m 30seconds in....... unbe-fcuking-lievable. Just imagine Jimmy Kimmel/Fallon doing and saying similar about Leslie Jones, for example.

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

Gotta laugh at using Wendy williams as an example of mainstream media. She's well known for saying controversial nasty things about the appearance and behaviour of various women.

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's a strawman argument there, chief, suggested nothing of the sort.

I didn't mention you at all. If you're not suggesting that the term toxic masculinity should not be applied to HW then I've no issue with you. My point is that it's a valid term, it's applicable to HW and there's no issue with Emma Thompson applying it to him.

Well, by that logic, false rape allegations are caused by 'toxic femininity' as that behaviour is confined to females.

Penny dropped yet? Doubt it.

Nope. False rape claims are rare. Sexual harrassment of women by men is not. Penny dropped yet?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sexual harassment is not something solely committed by males, and is committed by women too. The only difference is the perception as to what constitutes sexual harassment, and whether men are bothered by such behavior.

That's not true and I know you read the relevant study as I remember you saying you were reading it.

cantdecide

LLMMLL wrote: »

Nope. False rape claims are rare. Sexual harrassment of women by men is not. Penny dropped yet?

In a world of deplorable and heinous behaviour, what's the deal with you and sexual harassment? No one ever died of sexual harassment. Everyone gets sexually harassed in some way eventually. Can't you just condemn it and move on? I mean you can't jail people for cat calling or inappropriate remarks. Even I've been grabbed in clubs and I ain't no prize. I mean what do you want, a vigilante sniper squad that assassinates men for being *ssholes?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

That's not true and I know you read the relevant study as I remember you saying you were reading it.

A single study? Seriously? That's your justification for the blatant sexism of your post? And I also don't remember that study supporting your belief that sexual harassment only concerns women. You're welcome to post up the study again, and have the posters here consider your evidence.

And sexual harassment of men by women does occur, and since it does occur, then it's not specific to men.

You defend against anything remotely victim blaming (for women), and agree with posters talk about women not making harassment/abuse claims due to social pressure or simply being not believed. But you can't even allow that men wouldn't make similar claims due to the same pressures... and if you actually do some research you'll find that claims of sexual harassment of men in the workplace can often be as high as 17-20 percent. But, hey! that's less than women, so it doesn't exist.

After all, only women can be victims. :rolleyes:

LLMMLL

cantdecide wrote: »

In a world of deplorable and heinous behaviour, what's the deal with you and sexual harassment? No one ever died of sexual harassment. Everyone gets sexually harassed in some way eventually. Can't you just condemn it and move on? I mean you can't jail people for cat calling or inappropriate remarks. Even I've been grabbed in clubs and I ain't no prize. I mean what do you want, a vigilante sniper squad that assassinates men for being *ssholes?

Well I'd like a culture shift where defensive men don't try and dismiss any concerns around sexual harrassment by pointing to that one time in 2008 a girl groped their ass in Coppers for a start.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well I'd like a culture shift where defensive men don't try and dismiss any concerns around sexual harrassment by pointing to that one time in 2008 a girl groped their ass in Coppers for a start.

Oh, The irony. Priceless. I really don't even have to object, you provide the objections yourself.

Donnielighto

Are people dismissing them all or the attitude that it's one way?

Tbh I don't like the blame culture that assigns guilt by association across populations, it's happening more and more.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A single study? Seriously? That's your justification for the blatant sexism of your post?

And sexual harassment of men by women does occur, and since it does occur, then it's not specific to men.

You defend against anything remotely victim blaming, and agree with posters talk about women not making harassment/abuse claims due to social pressure or simply being not believed. But you can't even allow that men wouldn't make similar claims due to the same pressures... and if you actually do some research you'll find that claims of sexual harassment of men in the workplace can often be as high as 17-20 percent. But, hey! that's less than women, so it doesn't exist.

After all, only women can be victims. :rolleyes:

A single study of 75,000 people done by the most impartial of groups.

And the main harassers of men are other men.

Men are by far the most responsible for sexual harrassment. It's just a fact.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh, The irony. Priceless. I really don't even have to object, you provide the objections yourself.

The poster was trying to dismiss the extensive harrassment of women with a single example from his life. It's a common tactic. As I've said whenever this comes up, men should not be harassed. But the fact is it happens FAR less than the harrassment of women by men. The harrassment of women by men is a specific issue no committed equally by both genders. I'm Not going to pretend it is in the face of scientific evidence to the contrary.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

A single study of 75,000 people done by the most impartial of groups.

And the main harassers of men are other men.

Men are by far the most responsible for sexual harrassment. It's just a fact.

It's a fact that there are more reported incidents of sexual harassment by males. Yup. That's a fact.

It is not a fact that sexual harassment is solely enacted by men. It is a fact that women do engage in sexual harassment of men. Perhaps consider the "facts" you choose to use in supporting your statements.

It's also a fact that both genders do not report sexual harassment due to many social/cultural reasons.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn't mention you at all. If you're not suggesting that the term toxic masculinity should not be applied to HW then I've no issue with you. My point is that it's a valid term, it's applicable to HW and there's no issue with Emma Thompson applying it to him.

If you can't see your "valid term" that's bandied about more and more, strongly suggests masculinity itself is toxic I don't know what to say to you. Then again you are a feminist, so are incapable of seeing that. The term "toxic femininity" couldn't even compute for you. It simply can't exist in your politic. It's always men's fault. Even male feminists apologists have to wear sackcloth because of their gender.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well I'd like a culture shift where defensive men don't try and dismiss any concerns around sexual harrassment by pointing to that one time in 2008 a girl groped their ass in Coppers for a start.

As would I actually. However I'd also like a cultural shift where feminists and feminism doesn't filter Every. Single. Issue. through women are always the victims, men are always to blame. That would be nice. Though fitting that square peg into the round hole of feminist thought is pretty much never going to happen, or at least this will happen about the same time.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh, The irony. Priceless.

An irony bypass is a certainty with zealots of any persuasion. It's a very good litmus test of zealotry.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It's a fact that there are more reported incidents of sexual harassment by males. Yup. That's a fact.

It is not a fact that sexual harassment is solely enacted by men. It is a fact that women do engage in sexual harassment of men. Perhaps consider the "facts" you choose to use in supporting your statements.

It's also a fact that both genders do not report sexual harassment due to many social/cultural reasons.

I agree it's.not solely enacted by men. Just for the vast vast majority.