Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Dannyriver

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Blindboy is what I call a midwit.

Smart enough to understand the nonsense that is put into his head, but not smart enough to think around the theory. He's a useful idiot that appeals to other useful idiots.

Neoliberalism. Feminism. Liberalism. What big words will is use today? What trendy opinion will I espouse on the Late Late? Gobshìte.

These people are usually horrible to be around, as the old Dunning Kruger effect tends to kick in pretty quickly. There's no talking to them.

But mainly, he's not funny.

Neoliberalism and feminism might be big words to you but leave the rest of us out of it man.

RocketRaccoon

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Blindboy is what I call a midwit.

Smart enough to understand the nonsense that is put into his head, but not smart enough to think around the theory. He's a useful idiot that appeals to other useful idiots.

Neoliberalism. Feminism. Liberalism. What big words will is use today? What trendy opinion will I espouse on the Late Late? Gobsh.

These people are usually horrible to be around, as the old Dunning Kruger effect tends to kick in pretty quickly. There's no talking to them.

But mainly, he's not funny.

He's not funny..... In your opinion.

RocketRaccoon

Dannyriver wrote: »

Man that's actually laughable you haven t a clue what you re talking about yet you still decide to not listen to people who actually know Limerick because they are from there. The 2 choices you picked just prove it. Abbeyfeale is a small town which is practically in Kerry, and steamboat quay is not the best place to raise small kids considering its been bought up by vulcher funds who rent the apartments out to every drug dealer in town. Its party central down there from Thursday to Monday. Do you believe all the news you read in the papers or only the nonsence about Blindboy coming from the plush suburbs, Id say you d have no problem spotting fake news if it suited what you wanted to believe.

Sure with the amazing public transport you could get from Abbeyfeale to the plush surrounds of the ennis road in no time. You could even go via steamboat quay and check in on everyone there who is passed out in a corridor.

benjibruiser

He's an even more annoying version of Russell Brand with a bag on his head.

Ipso

So how does feminism deal with the scourge of neo-liberalism?

andekwarhola

Not sure why the background is an issue. He doesn't have to be from Moyross to be permitted an opinion or a career, does he?

Dannyriver

Ipso wrote: »

So how does feminism deal with the scourge of neo-liberalism?

It doesnt, but before neoliberalism when wages were decent and men went to work and had the kind of job security and workers rights that allowed banks to trust them with mortgages and women stayed at home to mind the kids the idea of the traditional role of the man as the breadwinner was feasible. All he is saying is that it's no longer feasible for a lot of men so rather than clinging to that gender role it would be wiser for men to embrace the notion of equality between the sexes and deal with the reality of society as it is. I've a feeling that the word feminism causes an emotional reaction for a lot of men and their critical faculties get hijacked which in a way is understandable due to the fact that radical feminism seems to get all the headlines I 've a feeling that had he used the word equality instead of feminism there would be far less furore.

Arne_Saknussem

Dannyriver wrote: »

It doesnt, but before neoliberalism when wages were decent and men went to work and had the kind of job security and workers rights that allowed banks to trust them with mortgages and women stayed at home to mind the kids the idea of the traditional role of the man as the breadwinner was feasible. All he is saying is that it's no longer feasible for a lot of men so rather than clinging to that gender role it would be wiser for men to embrace the notion of equality between the sexes and deal with the reality of society as it is. I've a feeling that the word feminism causes an emotional reaction for a lot of men and their critical faculties get hijacked which in a way is understandable due to the fact that radical feminism seems to get all the headlines I 've a feeling that had he used the word equality instead of feminism there would be far less furore.

I like the fact that he diagnosed the problems of an entire generation of young men by talking to his mates, what an intellect!

I think that he meant feminism the modern movement, because when you look at the fact that far more successful acts than the Rubberbandits are saying that it's hard to make a living from the music business the neverending gravy train that is RTE must be very enticing.

I just hope that any young man that is suffering from real problems doesn't take his at best naively gullible, at worst self-servingly wayward advice.

Ipso

Dannyriver wrote: »

It doesnt, but before neoliberalism when wages were decent and men went to work and had the kind of job security and workers rights that allowed banks to trust them with mortgages and women stayed at home to mind the kids the idea of the traditional role of the man as the breadwinner was feasible. All he is saying is that it's no longer feasible for a lot of men so rather than clinging to that gender role it would be wiser for men to embrace the notion of equality between the sexes and deal with the reality of society as it is. I've a feeling that the word feminism causes an emotional reaction for a lot of men and their critical faculties get hijacked which in a way is understandable due to the fact that radical feminism seems to get all the headlines I 've a feeling that had he used the word equality instead of feminism there would be far less furore.

So things were grand before neoliberalism when wimmin were at home?
Doesn't equality mean women are free to work where they want, aspire to be in roles of power like men etc
One could argue that having two wage earners in a family causes as much trouble as (similar to cheap credit) more money becomes available and when there is more money then there is a knock on effect of high prices.
I think neoliberalism is a bit of a simplistic bogey man, personally I think the worlds economy is too reliant on financial services, and another thing is that poorer countries are now catching up and competing with the rest of the world.
When rejecting neoliberalism should we leave less developed countries on the slag heap?

J Mysterio

I thought they were mildly entertaining at first. Horse Outside was funny. After that they gradually became more iritating. As a Limerick man, I also think they are inadvertently another negative association to the city we don't really need, comedy or not. You don't want people to think of Limerick and think of some twat with a bag on his head.

Since they have 'gone political' I have no time for them, they don't have the aptitude for it. Hearing them lecture us on the Late Late was really annoying. That show on the Rising was ****e too.

The Moldy Gowl

J Mysterio wrote: »

I thought they were mildly entertaining at first. Horse Outside was funny. After that they gradually became more iritating. As a Limerick man, I also think they are inadvertently another negative association to the city we don't really need, comedy or not. You don't want people to think of Limerick and think of some twat with a bag on his head.

Since they have 'gone political' I have no time for them, they don't have the aptitude for it. Hearing them lecture us on the Late Late was really annoying. That show on the Rising was ****e too.

Isn't it mad they wrote spastic hawk for fans who became fans from horse outside so they wouldnt be fans anymore.
Sell outs.

RocketRaccoon

J Mysterio wrote: »

I thought they were mildly entertaining at first. Horse Outside was funny. After that they gradually became more iritating. As a Limerick man, I also think they are inadvertently another negative association to the city we don't really need, comedy or not. You don't want people to think of Limerick and think of some twat with a bag on his head.

Since they have 'gone political' I have no time for them, they don't have the aptitude for it. Hearing them lecture us on the Late Late was really annoying. That show on the Rising was ****e too.

If someone wants to imagine Limerick in a bad light because of the rubber bandits then they really are pathetic.

Dannyriver

J Mysterio wrote: »

I thought they were mildly entertaining at first. Horse Outside was funny. After that they gradually became more iritating. As a Limerick man, I also think they are inadvertently another negative association to the city we don't really need, comedy or not. You don't want people to think of Limerick and think of some twat with a bag on his head.

Since they have 'gone political' I have no time for them, they don't have the aptitude for it. Hearing them lecture us on the Late Late was really annoying. That show on the Rising was ****e too.

Are u that guy who rang up Joe duffy complaining about horse outside back in the day?

Choochtown

Haven't seen much of Blindboy on tv but I was given his book as a present last week and it is a fantastic piece of work.

Dannyriver

Ipso wrote: »

So things were grand before neoliberalism when wimmin were at home?
Doesn't equality mean women are free to work where they want, aspire to be in roles of power like men etc
One could argue that having two wage earners in a family causes as much trouble as (similar to cheap credit) more money becomes available and when there is more money then there is a knock on effect of high prices.
I think neoliberalism is a bit of a simplistic bogey man, personally I think the worlds economy is too reliant on financial services, and another thing is that poorer countries are now catching up and competing with the rest of the world.
When rejecting neoliberalism should we leave less developed countries on the slag heap?

Who said things were grand, the argument was that living up to traditional gender roles was more feasible economically before the demise of workers rights which came hand in hand with neoliberalism.

And no we shouldn't leave less developed countries on the scrap heap we should stop treating their resources like the cash cow that western corporations under the guise of neoliberalism have continued to do for years.

J Mysterio

Dad's Best Friend was pretty class though.

weldoninhio

Dannyriver wrote: »

Who said things were grand, the argument was that living up to traditional gender roles was more feasible economically before the demise of workers rights which came hand in hand with neoliberalism.

And no we shouldn't leave less developed countries on the scrap heap we should stop treating their resources like the cash cow that western corporations under the guise of neoliberalism have continued to do for years.

Was there also a huge depression problem when hunter/gatherer man could no longer hunt meat and had to get a “good job” with a “decent wage”. Jesus

Man with bag on head talks bollix, pseudo intellectuals think they’ll look intelligent by agreeing with him. It’s laughable.

RocketRaccoon

weldoninhio wrote: »

Was there also a huge depression problem when hunter/gatherer man could no longer hunt meat and had to get a “good job” with a “decent wage”. Jesus

Man with bag on head talks bollix, pseudo intellectuals think they’ll look intelligent by agreeing with him. It’s laughable.

Internet warriors disagree with what man says simply because he has a bag on his head, completely ignoring what he ACTUALLY says. It's laughable.

J Mysterio

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Internet warriors disagree with what man says simply because he has a bag on his head, completely ignoring what he ACTUALLY says. It's laughable.

But he's only talking shiţe anyway. He lays it out there like it's something profound. He's like Bob Geldof, or Bono - preaching.

Wibbs

Dannyriver wrote: »

It's obvious here that he is using feminism in the traditional sense of equality and not in the radical feminism that makes all the headlines these days. What do you think he means by it?

It's not "obvious" at all. If he had meant "equality" then maybe he should have used the word? Instead we get "There's a crisis in young men in this country - they need feminism" and the usual "feminist" buzzwords like "patriarchy". If he thinks "feminism" equals egalitarianism he's an even more naive individual. Oh and that's mainstream feminism by the way DR, not the radicals.

I've a feeling that the word feminism causes an emotional reaction for a lot of men and their critical faculties get hijacked which in a way is understandable due to the fact that radical feminism seems to get all the headlines I 've a feeling that had he used the word equality instead of feminism there would be far less furore.

Well for me and I suspect an increasing number of folks who actually delve into the movement, "feminism" is increasingly looked like gender politics, victims and victimisers, wrapped up in utter bullsh1t. I would have described myself as a feminist if asked in the 80's and 90's, today I would most certainly not. Even I can only take so much bullsh1t before I reach a limit. And again if someone is representing as some sort of mouthpiece for a generation or gender then it behoves them to be at least accurate in the words they choose to use. Oh you meant X? Well then bloody well state X. If you didn't know what you meant, then get off the stage you tyro.

Dannyriver wrote: »

It doesnt, but before neoliberalism when wages were decent and men went to work and had the kind of job security and workers rights that allowed banks to trust them with mortgages and women stayed at home to mind the kids the idea of the traditional role of the man as the breadwinner was feasible. All he is saying is that it's no longer feasible for a lot of men so rather than clinging to that gender role it would be wiser for men to embrace the notion of equality between the sexes and deal with the reality of society as it is.

Again which is fine, but the reality is often very different. Study after study worldwide shows that women on average go for men slightly taller, slightly older and slightly higher in job/social status/earnings, so even in our couples need both working to live a life society the old underlying tendencies are in play. To be fair to Ireland it's not nearly so bad as other cultures, even within Europe. In America for example that tendency would be even more at play. It is more egalitarian here which is a good thing.

Never mind that it's long been the case, certainly before his generation, that couples had to pool resources to buy houses and set up home and family. I'm the generation ahead of him and that was most certainly the case. Outside of a few wealthy guys with wives who became "ladies who lunch" with "careers" like interior designer, modernist knitter and yogic candle maker(with added sage. And blonde), the vast majority of couples I know are of the throughly modern both pulling their weights and were expected to be since at least the 1980's. Yet it's only nowadays we're seeing crisis of mental health among young men, who have almost to a man grown up in such an environment? Doesn't add up for me.

So what could be the reasons? In mental health generally I would look to greater awareness, which is good. However greater awareness also runs the risk of self diagnosis and a medical profession that helps that along. I can walk into any GP within a five mile radius of my gaff, tell them I'm not sleeping that well and feel stressed and at least half will write me a script for SSRI's. The over medicalisation of mental health and normal human experiences another pressure.

There is also a generation divide in the west. Namely those born and raised before the interwebs and those born and raised with it. The Interwebs has been an incredible boon to mankind, but coming along for the ride has been information overload, information vagueness and an increased sense of fear. Ideas and illnesses once rarely heard or seen, often because they were rare, are now seen to be "common" because a few people get together online and make a much bigger noise than they could have before. QV Feminists, Red Pill muppets, conspiracy nuts of all stripes and so forth. It makes the radical seem mainstream.

Along with that social media brings its own issues. It plugs into the natural human need for social connection and recognition. Which is fine, but also amplifies the equally natural tendency of narcissism, often to scary degrees. Even scarier when it's not recognised. More, because of how social media can be framed some promote an ever more perfect world that they inhabit, but you don't, you failure. An ever increasing arms race of oneupman(woman)ship. IF you're not in you can't win. Or not in enough. I can certainly say I would fcuking hate to be an adolescent these days, boy or girl(though IMHO the girls have it worse in a couple of areas).

Add in the economic fallout from the "Celtic Tiger". Many of the cubs have seen parents and lifestyles go from shiny to sh1tty in ten years. That's gonna have an affect. The jobs market when they leave schooling another.

That's in general. Male specific? Yes I would agree the Provider thing is in play, but it's coming late enough to the party IMH. Another would be the good to see increasing success of women in academia. That may make some men feel left behind. Especially as classrooms are overwhelming taught by women, who even with the best will in the world will naturally tend to teach in ways more likely to be conducive to how girls learn. Feminism? If anything it's a negative for young men. If any young man was to delve into feminism and I mean mainstream feminism, he will read and hear that all the ills of this world are because of men. Even if it's couched in patriarchy, that's still men. Even if his sorry state is accepted, it's still because of how his gender have allegedly shaped the world. Women are always the agentless victims and men are always to blame. If a young man is hearing that on the regular, do you really think that's going to make him feel secure, appreciated, valued? Especially when he reads and sees that his women peers are clearly more valued and supported by the society at large? Like hell it will.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Internet warriors disagree with what man says simply because he has a bag on his head, completely ignoring what he ACTUALLY says. It's laughable.

I'm listening to what he's saying. Still sounds like the usual easily digestible, making the right noises soundbites that go down well with some.

The Moldy Gowl

J Mysterio wrote: »

But he's only talking shiţe anyway. He lays it out there like it's something profound. He's like Bob Geldof, or Bono - preaching.

He isnt though. Just making it easier to digest. He makes nice points the feminism thing danny touched on keeps coming up. Thats fine, but its reading too much into militant feminism which doswnt


Its weird you are from limerick and dont share his ideas to a certain degree. You must not be in our generation (25-35)
Dont wanna sound like a poncy prick but anyone in that age group agrees with him.

riffmongous

andekwarhola wrote: »

Genuine Irish surrealism at its finest.

Surreal and yet so close to reality, I could swear I have met the people who it is based on

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

It's not "obvious" at all. If he had meant "equality" then maybe he should have used the word? Instead we get "There's a crisis in young men in this country - they need feminism" and the usual "feminist" buzzwords like "patriarchy". If he thinks "feminism" equals egalitarianism he's an even more naive individual. Oh and that's mainstream feminism by the way DR, not the radicals.

Well for me and I suspect an increasing number of folks who actually delve into the movement, "feminism" is increasingly looked like gender politics, victims and victimisers, wrapped up in utter bullsh1t. I would have described myself as a feminist if asked in the 80's and 90's, today I would most certainly not. Even I can only take so much bullsh1t before I reach a limit. And again if someone is representing as some sort of mouthpiece for a generation or gender then it behoves them to be at least accurate in the words they choose to use. Oh you meant X? Well then bloody well state X. If you didn't know what you meant, then get off the stage you tyro.

Again which is fine, but the reality is often very different. Study after study worldwide shows that women on average go for men slightly taller, slightly older and slightly higher in job/social status/earnings, so even in our couples need both working to live a life society the old underlying tendencies are in play. To be fair to Ireland it's not nearly so bad as other cultures, even within Europe. In America for example that tendency would be even more at play. It is more egalitarian here which is a good thing.

Never mind that it's long been the case, certainly before his generation, that couples had to pool resources to buy houses and set up home and family. I'm the generation ahead of him and that was most certainly the case. Outside of a few wealthy guys with wives who became "ladies who lunch" with "careers" like interior designer, modernist knitter and yogic candle maker(with added sage. And blonde), the vast majority of couples I know are of the throughly modern both pulling their weights and were expected to be since at least the 1980's. Yet it's only nowadays we're seeing crisis of mental health among young men, who have almost to a man grown up in such an environment? Doesn't add up for me.

So what could be the reasons? In mental health generally I would look to greater awareness, which is good. However greater awareness also runs the risk of self diagnosis and a medical profession that helps that along. I can walk into any GP within a five mile radius of my gaff, tell them I'm not sleeping that well and feel stressed and at least half will write me a script for SSRI's. The over medicalisation of mental health and normal human experiences another pressure.

There is also a generation divide in the west. Namely those born and raised before the interwebs and those born and raised with it. The Interwebs has been an incredible boon to mankind, but coming along for the ride has been information overload, information vagueness and an increased sense of fear. Ideas and illnesses once rarely heard or seen, often because they were rare, are now seen to be "common" because a few people get together online and make a much bigger noise than they could have before. QV Feminists, Red Pill muppets, conspiracy nuts of all stripes and so forth. It makes the radical seem mainstream.

Along with that social media brings its own issues. It plugs into the natural human need for social connection and recognition. Which is fine, but also amplifies the equally natural tendency of narcissism, often to scary degrees. Even scarier when it's not recognised. More, because of how social media can be framed some promote an ever more perfect world that they inhabit, but you don't, you failure. An ever increasing arms race of oneupman(woman)ship. IF you're not in you can't win. Or not in enough. I can certainly say I would fcuking hate to be an adolescent these days, boy or girl(though IMHO the girls have it worse in a couple of areas).

Add in the economic fallout from the "Celtic Tiger". Many of the cubs have seen parents and lifestyles go from shiny to sh1tty in ten years. That's gonna have an affect. The jobs market when they leave schooling another.

That's in general. Male specific? Yes I would agree the Provider thing is in play, but it's coming late enough to the party IMH. Another would be the good to see increasing success of women in academia. That may make some men feel left behind. Especially as classrooms are overwhelming taught by women, who even with the best will in the world will naturally tend to teach in ways more likely to be conducive to how girls learn. Feminism? If anything it's a negative for young men. If any young man was to delve into feminism and I mean mainstream feminism, he will read and hear that all the ills of this world are because of men. Even if it's couched in patriarchy, that's still men. Even if his sorry state is accepted, it's still because of how his gender have allegedly shaped the world. Women are always the agentless victims and men are always to blame. If a young man is hearing that on the regular, do you really think that's going to make him feel secure, appreciated, valued? Especially when he reads and sees that his women peers are clearly more valued and supported by the society at large? Like hell it will.

I'm listening to what he's saying. Still sounds like the usual easily digestible, making the right noises soundbites that go down well with some.

That s a long post Wibbs and some solid insights into the compare and despair culture that the internet social media experiment has put on humankind and for the first time in the east and the west.

But I fail to see why it's relevant to the point Blindboy made about feminism which by definition is equality of the sexes. The only reason I feel he should have used equality instead of feminism is that it has become a word that alienates a lot of young people [men in particular] because of the way the media seems to only focus on radical feminists and alt right commentators such as Paul Joseph Watson hijacking the word by representing it to mean some kind of push for female dominance. And yes I still think It is pretty obvious that he meant the traditional meaning of the term...which as I ve said by definition means equality of the sexes.

Prune Tracy

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm listening to what he's saying. Still sounds like the usual easily digestible, making the right noises soundbites that go down well with some.

I don't agree with the insults here (awful childishness to be resorting to) and I don't always disagree with him (I probably agree with him a lot) but I do disagree with people who think he's saying really daring stuff that the establishment doesn't want said. He's not doing that at all IMO.
As a woman, and a woman who might be considered an old-skool feminist, I don't think young men need feminism.

Wibbs

Dannyriver wrote: »

But I fail to see why it's relevant to the point Blindboy made about feminism which by definition is equality of the sexes.../... And yes I still think It is pretty obvious that he meant the traditional meaning of the term...which as I ve said by definition means equality of the sexes.

No, it most certainly does not mean or define equality DR and the clue is in the very name. It is not humanism, or egalitarianism, but feminism. "Fem". Woman. that is a huge part of the problem in gender politics and general bullsh1t today. Too many, naturally believe it means equality, when even the most cursory of glances shows that to be at best a half truth, at worst(and more usually) a nonsense.

Now it started off as a strive for equality, an equality of genders regardless. In the early days of the Suffragettes those women wanted true equality, up to the point of campaigning for the right of women to be tried and even executed for the same crimes as men(because generally the "patriarchal" courts gave women more leeway). I would be happy enough to call myself a Suffragette, but a feminist? No bloody way.

Since that time and especially in the last twenty odd years "feminism" has in the mainstream sought special treatment for women and a general admonishment for men. So where once the Suffragettes called for equality in treatment in law, nowadays the "feminists" look for and get lesser sentences for women and lesser gaol time. If they even end up in court. A very different take.

Secondly the Suffragettes didn't automatically see women as victims, quite the opposite. Today the "feminists" absorb victimhood as a near birthright and place blame on men as a near given. As I've noted; if one was to sum up modern "feminism" it would be thus: Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame.

Seriously DR, look at current mainstream "feminism" and put it through the above filter and I can guarantee you it will fit. Even when some women are acknowledged to be beyond the Pale, it is couched in terms that it is still Men's™ fault. Try it for yourself D if you don't believe me. OIT works Every. Single. Time. Which should tell you all you need to know about how "equality"is defined within that politic.

Brian?

I’m quite drunk after the the match. I defy anyone to listen to “Double Dropping Yokes with Eamonn de Valera” and tell it’s not amazing

Dannyriver

Prune Tracy wrote: »

I don't agree with the insults here (awful childishness to be resorting to) and I don't always disagree with him (I probably agree with him a lot) but I do disagree with people who think he's saying really daring stuff that the establishment doesn't want said. He's not doing that at all IMO.
As a woman, and a woman who might be considered an old-skool feminist, I don't think young men need feminism.

I agree with you , he doesn t say daring stuff, I find his opinions tend to be empathetic and commonsensical and from a left-leaning perspective very mainstream which is fine, it's others that have decided that he sees himself as some kind of prophet or Bono figure, you ll always have **** projected on you once you are in the public eye when all you are doing is expressing an opinion about stuff you care about, that s just the deal.

However, at the risk of repeating myself for which I apologise in advance, I do think the traditional stereotypes of men being the strong able provider [boys dont cry etc] puts a lot of pressure on young men and I believe that s all that BB said. Had he spoke about third wave feminism etc then I would be disagreeing with him also. But everything else he said in the interview and since suggests otherwise.

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

No, it most certainly does not mean or define equality DR and the clue is in the very name. It is not humanism, or egalitarianism, but feminism. "Fem". Woman. that is a huge part of the problem in gender politics and general bullsh1t today. Too many, naturally believe it means equality, when even the most cursory of glances shows that to be at best a half truth, at worst(and more usually) a nonsense.

Now it started off as a strive for equality, an equality of genders regardless. In the early days of the Suffragettes those women wanted true equality, up to the point of campaigning for the right of women to be tried and even executed for the same crimes as men(because generally the "patriarchal" courts gave women more leeway). I would be happy enough to call myself a Suffragette, but a feminist? No bloody way.

Since that time and especially in the last twenty odd years "feminism" has in the mainstream sought special treatment for women and a general admonishment for men. So where once the Suffragettes called for equality in treatment in law, nowadays the "feminists" look for and get lesser sentences for women and lesser gaol time. If they even end up in court. A very different take.

Secondly the Suffragettes didn't automatically see women as victims, quite the opposite. Today the "feminists" absorb victimhood as a near birthright and place blame on men as a near given. As I've noted; if one was to sum up modern "feminism" it would be thus: Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame.

Seriously DR, look at current mainstream "feminism" and put it through the above filter and I can guarantee you it will fit. Even when some women are acknowledged to be beyond the Pale, it is couched in terms that it is still Men's™ fault. Try it for yourself D if you don't believe me. OIT works Every. Single. Time. Which should tell you all you need to know about how "equality"is defined within that politic.

There is very little in this post or the excellent post you put forward earlier that i dont agree with, nor knowing BB as I do that I feel he wouldnt agree with but the feminism you speak of is clearly not the one he was implying , the rest of his statement and illustration makes that clear to me. We'll have to settle on disagreeing as to whether he meant the traditional notion of feminism/equality or the version you speak of. Peace.

Hammer89

Wibbs wrote: »

I'm listening to what he's saying. Still sounds like the usual easily digestible, making the right noises soundbites that go down well with some.

It's not digestible. Go out and find 10 people from his generation who knows what the f*ck he's on about when speaking about neoliberalism. I don't consider myself unintelligent but I've no idea what that word means, and I'm willing to bet the people in my circle of friends - accountants, bankers, HR folks - don't either.

It's as if he cares more about the approval of people he aspires to emulate rather than getting his message across.

Wibbs

Dannyriver wrote: »

However, at the risk of repeating myself for which I apologise in advance, I do think the traditional stereotypes of men being the strong able provider [boys dont cry etc] puts a lot of pressure on young men and I believe that s all that BB said.

Which again makes sense. On the surface. Yet when the full on traditional stereotypes were in play, the male suicide rate was lower. The male suicide rate and dissatisfaction and confusion of today is much higher in a far more "feminist" society, so how does one explain that?

Had he spoke about third wave feminism etc then I would be disagreeing with him also. But everything else he said in the interview and since suggests otherwise.

It does and it doesn't. His rhetoric is well couched in the terms of the new wave "feminism" and obviously so. And the usual "feminist" taking heads, including the utterly daft hardline made mainstream, have the horn for him. Which should tell you all you need to know about how it is coming across in a few quarters, even if I personally don't believe he means it in those terms and does mean well and wants to get that out.

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

Which again makes sense. On the surface. Yet when the full on traditional stereotypes were in play, the male suicide rate was lower. The male suicide rate of today is in a far more "feminist" society, so how does one explain that? It does and it doesn't. His rhetoric is well couched in the terms of the new wave "feminism" and obviously so. And the usual "feminist" taking heads, including the utterly daft hardline made mainstream, have the horn for him. Which should tell you all you need to know about how it is coming across in a few quarters, even if I personally don't believe he means it in those terms and does mean well and wants to get that out.

He cannot be responsible for who has the horn for him or the ones on here who think he s a preachy ****, I think we could both agree with that.

Wibbs

Hammer89 wrote: »

It's not digestible. Go out and find 10 people from his generation who knows what the f*ck he's on about when speaking about neoliberalism.

In fairness I am a pretentious know it all cúnt, so you may well have a point.

Wibbs

Dannyriver wrote: »

He cannot be responsible for who has the horn for him or the ones on here who think he s a preachy ****, I think we could both agree with that.

Oh I do agree DR. However if one uses the terminology of a politic it is not daft to assume people will react positively or negatively to that politic's terminology. IE; "what men need is feminism". That sets out a very particular stall for any man or woman who might explore further.

By the by DR, I don't have an issue with him, or anyone else, seeing things as bad and trying too make them better and the effort to do so is bloody laudable. More power to him and anyone who does. However one must also be careful about jumping on and using the terminology of currently fashionable and the surface thumbnail sketches of bandwagons of any stripe. In this case "feminism".

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

Which again makes sense. On the surface. Yet when the full on traditional stereotypes were in play, the male suicide rate was lower. The male suicide rate and dissatisfaction and confusion of today is much higher in a far more "feminist" society, so how does one explain that? It does and it doesn't. His rhetoric is well couched in the terms of the new wave "feminism" and obviously so. And the usual "feminist" taking heads, including the utterly daft hardline made mainstream, have the horn for him. Which should tell you all you need to know about how it is coming across in a few quarters, even if I personally don't believe he means it in those terms and does mean well and wants to get that out.

True, but could this not be down to underreporting? IMO male suicide has always been a problem, we have only become fully aware of it now that a spade is mostly called a spade when listing the cause of death.

Dannyriver

mzungu wrote: »

True, but could this not be down to underreporting?

Or the fact that our young people aren't having education around the changing world be it political/gender political/or emotional that the internet has unleashed probably because the ones making these decisions have been caught out by it also. The tech industry is driven by profit for this generation not a concern for the next.

Wibbs

mzungu wrote: »

True, but could this not be down to underreporting? IMO male suicide has always been a problem, we have only become fully aware of it now that a spade is mostly called a spade when listing the cause of death.

OH that is certainly true for a large proportion, however stats show that in recent years middle aged men, who were once the least likely to go and kill themselves(and generally stable in death rates overall) are now one of the most vulnerable groups. Given they were the male group least likely to die by any cause that says something. I'm not sure what, but something.

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I do agree DR. However if one uses the terminology of a politic it is not daft to assume people will react positively or negatively to that politic's terminology. IE; "what men need is feminism". That sets out a very particular stall for any man or woman who might explore further.

By the by DR, I don't have an issue with him, or anyone else, seeing things as bad and trying too make them better and the effort to do so is bloody laudable. More power to him and anyone who does. However one must also be careful about jumping on and using the terminology of currently fashionable and the surface thumbnail sketches of bandwagons of any stripe. In this case "feminism".

Fair enough Wibbs I wont go into it again....

In the meantime, I urge you to get his book it really is a cracking read, and the 'gospel according to' title is misleading. Its actually just a collection of excellent short stories that will keep you captivated and amused at the same time which is a tall order for any debut.

Dannyriver

Wibbs wrote: »

OH that is certainly true for a large proportion, however stats show that in recent years middle aged men, who were once the least likely to go and kill themselves(and generally stable in death rates overall) are now one of the most vulnerable groups. Given they were the male group least likely to die by any cause that says something. I'm not sure what, but something.

When familiar structures collapse a sense of meaninglessness ensues. I think that s true for all of us.

OnDraught

Wibbs wrote: »

Which again makes sense. On the surface. Yet when the full on traditional stereotypes were in play, the male suicide rate was lower. The male suicide rate and dissatisfaction and confusion of today is much higher in a far more "feminist" society, so how does one explain that?

The idea that male suicide is on the rise because of feminism is pure bollox in my opinion. The Dubliners were singing Pete st Johns lyrics in the 70’s that went

“By trade I was a cooper
Lost out to redundancy
Like my house that fell to progress
my trade's a memory”

This is nothing new and absolutely fukk all to to do with feminism. It’s a problem caused by capitalism and it’s only going to get worse.

Rumpy Pumpy

The Gospel According to wasn't the title the author wanted by all accounts. Read or saw that somewhere. Which is fair enough. I presume there's a need to get the book on shelves and sold. Capitalism and all that.

Fair dues to him for getting a book published and widely publicised. If Fr. Brian Darcy can get 5 books through the editors then every man (and woman) should have a shot at it.

One eyed Jack

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The problem with your suggestion is that Blindboy often operates on a level that is, arguably, above that of his critics. He's a very eloquent and well-read man. His thick accent seems to belie this, especially when it comes to people who haven't really listened to him before trying to argue with him.

He really doesn't. He's no Elizabeth Anscombe (Limerick native), that's for certain. Now there was a woman who was unquestionably on a level well above that of her critics. Blindboy? Not so much.

Dannyriver wrote: »

Read his book man,or even the review of it i ve linked below. Cant remember twink releasing a book that was lauded by critics and fellow writers and artists. or maybe I missed that one.

https://www.independent.ie/entertainment/books/book-reviews/demented-dishevelled-and-deeply-surreal-blindboy-boatclubs-book-will-shock-and-delight-36265267.html

I've read his book, and I read that review. It reads like it was written by Brian Badonde. It's certainly not as creative as The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies. I still laugh every time I read their explanation of "manspreading" -

Manspreading — a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide — is akin to raping the empty space around him. :pac:

And I'm not the first person to suggest it's not a particularly riveting read either -

Blindboy Boatclub book: A mixed plastic bag of mad ideas

Dannyriver wrote: »

I think you misinterpreted my use of 'mental health issues' as 'mental illness' Regarding mental illness i agree with you. I also agree/know that GP s aren t qualified nor have the time to deal with basic mental health issues of their clients and tend to use the medical model far too broadly. We need a proactive approach to education around mental health fitness[resilience] from an early age and also teachers and carers of young people need to be educated around same.

When was the last time you set foot inside the doors of Mary I?

Or any school in Limerick for that matter?

Wall to wall mental health. Mental health'd up to the eyeballs!

Teachers are people too btw, their profession doesn't give them immunity from experiencing issues with their mental health. Quite the opposite really, so to suggest that they need educating around same is a bit of a head scratcher.

Dannyriver wrote: »

Man that's actually laughable you haven t a clue what you re talking about yet you still decide to not listen to people who actually know Limerick because they are from there. The 2 choices you picked just prove it. Abbeyfeale is a small town which is practically in Kerry, and steamboat quay is not the best place to raise small kids considering its been bought up by vulcher funds who rent the apartments out to every drug dealer in town. Its party central down there from Thursday to Monday. Do you believe all the news you read in the papers or only the nonsence about Blindboy coming from the plush suburbs, Id say you d have no problem spotting fake news if it suited what you wanted to believe.

Whoa! The bang of irony off that, I'd to open a window :pac:

I'd love to see a source for your bullsh... claims. While you were busy berating others for not knowing what they were talking about and abandoning their critical faculties, you appear to have done exactly the same thing yourself.

Mind you don't choke on your prosecco.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Internet warriors disagree with what man says simply because he has a bag on his head, completely ignoring what he ACTUALLY says. It's laughable.

I'm not an internet warrior, but really, what do you expect? He has a plastic bag on his head! Where do you go from there like? :pac:

Dannyriver

One eyed Jack wrote: »

He really doesn't. He's no Elizabeth Anscombe (Limerick native), that's for certain. Now there was a woman who was unquestionably on a level well above that of her critics. Blindboy? Not so much.





I've read his book, and I read that review. It reads like it was written by Brian Badonde. It's certainly not as creative as The Conceptual Penis as a Social Construct: A Sokal-Style Hoax on Gender Studies. I still laugh every time I read their explanation of "manspreading" -

Manspreading — a complaint levied against men for sitting with their legs spread wide — is akin to raping the empty space around him. :pac:

And I'm not the first person to suggest it's not a particularly riveting read either -

Blindboy Boatclub book: A mixed plastic bag of mad ideas






When was the last time you set foot inside the doors of Mary I?

Or any school in Limerick for that matter?

Wall to wall mental health. Mental health'd up to the eyeballs!

Teachers are people too btw, their profession doesn't give them immunity from experiencing issues with their mental health. Quite the opposite really, so to suggest that they need educating around same is a bit of a head scratcher.





Whoa! The bang of irony off that, I'd to open a window :pac:

I'd love to see a source for your bullsh... claims. While you were busy berating others for not knowing what they were talking about and abandoning their critical faculties, you appear to have done exactly the same thing yourself.

Mind you don't choke on your prosecco.





I'm not an internet warrior, but really, what do you expect? He has a plastic bag on his head! Where do you go from there like? :pac:

I take it ur not too fond of Blindboy there one eyed jack, sorry to hear you got burnt with his book. sleep well.

OnDraught

I think a lot of people have a problem with the rubberbandits because they are issue jumpers. Whether it is recreational drug use, suicide, feminism or whatever it is next month. They seem to jockey on to whatever is the cause of the day. There is no follow up. This is true of most social commentators but they lose all edge and it could be anyone making the point as a result.

Junkyard Tom

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Smart enough to understand the nonsense that is put into his head, but not smart enough to think around the theory.

What do you mean by this?

potatohouse

i come back on to boards every now and then to see if its still all misers and gatekeepers. was not let down this time 10/10 keep up the catholicism

the_syco

Sky King wrote: »

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.

Do you not see his point? :pac:

Wibbs

OnDraught wrote: »

This is nothing new and absolutely fukk all to to do with feminism. It’s a problem caused by capitalism and it’s only going to get worse.

Leaving aside the problem is capitalism, as pointing the finger at any ism you fancy is overly simplistic and is more informative of the position held by the person doing the pointing. IE Socialists see capitalism as the enemy, Conservatives will see socialism as the enemy and so on.

My comment on feminism and boys/young men was part of a previous post where I outlined a few factors that may be in play.

"So what could be the reasons? In mental health generally I would look to greater awareness, which is good. However greater awareness also runs the risk of self diagnosis and a medical profession that helps that along. I can walk into any GP within a five mile radius of my gaff, tell them I'm not sleeping that well and feel stressed and at least half will write me a script for SSRI's. The over medicalisation of mental health and normal human experiences another pressure.

There is also a generation divide in the west. Namely those born and raised before the interwebs and those born and raised with it. The Interwebs has been an incredible boon to mankind, but coming along for the ride has been information overload, information vagueness and an increased sense of fear. Ideas and illnesses once rarely heard or seen, often because they were rare, are now seen to be "common" because a few people get together online and make a much bigger noise than they could have before. QV Feminists, Red Pill muppets, conspiracy nuts of all stripes and so forth. It makes the radical seem mainstream.

Along with that social media brings its own issues. It plugs into the natural human need for social connection and recognition. Which is fine, but also amplifies the equally natural tendency of narcissism, often to scary degrees. Even scarier when it's not recognised. More, because of how social media can be framed some promote an ever more perfect world that they inhabit, but you don't, you failure. An ever increasing arms race of oneupman(woman)ship. IF you're not in you can't win. Or not in enough. I can certainly say I would fcuking hate to be an adolescent these days, boy or girl(though IMHO the girls have it worse in a couple of areas).

Add in the economic fallout from the "Celtic Tiger". Many of the cubs have seen parents and lifestyles go from shiny to sh1tty in ten years. That's gonna have an affect. The jobs market when they leave schooling another.

That's in general. Male specific? Yes I would agree the Provider thing is in play, but it's coming late enough to the party IMH. Another would be the good to see increasing success of women in academia. That may make some men feel left behind. Especially as classrooms are overwhelming taught by women, who even with the best will in the world will naturally tend to teach in ways more likely to be conducive to how girls learn. Feminism? If anything it's a negative for young men. If any young man was to delve into feminism and I mean mainstream feminism, he will read and hear that all the ills of this world are because of men. Even if it's couched in patriarchy, that's still men. Even if his sorry state is accepted, it's still because of how his gender have allegedly shaped the world. Women are always the agentless victims and men are always to blame. If a young man is hearing that on the regular, do you really think that's going to make him feel secure, appreciated, valued? Especially when he reads and sees that his women peers are clearly more valued and supported by the society at large?"

Taking things further, I think we can all agree that today's Ireland is far more liberal, more left of centre, far less religious, with more gender equality, more gay rights, more social safety nets, far more discussion and acceptance of mental health and illness and far more avenues of treatments than the Ireland of say the Conservative Catholic, women can't work after marriage, gays don't exist, widespread abuse of our children and real poverty was rife 1960's, yet in the face of all that we're being told - and it certainly seems to be the case - that the rates of mental illnesses are going ever upward. This does not compute. If we've improved so much on so many levels from the Bad Old Days© of muttering polished rosaries and by god we have, then what's the explanation for the rise of mental issues in men and women?

I am not suggesting those days were better. Far bloody from it. I'm old enough to remember the hint of the odour of the fart that it was. I am suggesting that the easy soundbite answers of more whatever ism you're having yourself is not a solution and its not an answer, it's barely a question. And it seems it's not working.

nozzferrahhtoo

Do not recall ever listening to a thing the guy has to say. Since however his second pod cast was linked early in the thread I have taken the time to listen to it. I see little wrong with it at all. Quick summary of it:

00:00 - 02:00

Just introductions. Nothing wrong there.

02:00 - 10:00

Starts talking about the issue of mental health again, showing that he has actually been talking about it in his work since 2005 and not just some recent thing to further his career.

Much like the "We have had abortions" thread here, he talks about how much help it can be for such people to hear the testimonies and experiences of other people who have such issues. Things like anxiety attacks are terrifying and freaky, but when you hear other people going through the same stuff it makes you feel more normal.

He talks about how talking about mental health should be a discussion that we move to normalize. That we need more of it to achieve that.

He gives a quick adumbration of the thinking being CBT as well. He is clearly convinced by it, so mentions it, but does not evangelize it TOO much. And he does mention it's limitations and his own biases for it, which is useful and honest. Including recent research that shows mindfulness meditation and CBT can be, when used on the wrong people, actually harmful and limiting.

Again seeing nothing wrong here. All good stuff in fact.

10:00 - 19:00

Talking about the "I can not take him seriously because of the bag" people. He pretty much explains why he does it, how irrelevant it SHOULD be, and what he thinks of the critique of it in general. He distinguishes between what he sees as "anonymity" and "privacy" and why the bag is for the latter, more so the former.

He talks about how fame / notoriety can change you. When you go places and people see you and know you, you can end up "going up your own hole" thinking you are special. That there is a different way people treat you and talk to you when they know you are from "the tele". And he gets NONE of that, because without the bag on his head generally no one knows who he is, he is not treated different or special, and he lessens the risk he will think he is more important to the world than he actually is.

Getting a tiny bit more "preachy" on that he talks about how self-esteem should not be predicated on external things. Such as the approval or awe of others. And "the bag" assists him in keeping a healthy divide in that regard.

Still not seeing anything wrong in his message or thinking there.

19:00 - 22:00

Talks about his book a bit. And the process of writing and creating art. And how reading reviews of his work influences his work, in positive and negative ways. Quite honest here but nothing that, for me at least, is terribly interesting.

22:00 - 29:30

A weird segue into Madagascar traditions around corpses, and how people here in Ireland treat death. He thinks there is a strange beauty in their attitude towards death there. Suffering and death is unavoidable in life, and we spend a lot of our time avoiding thinking about it at all. I think it quite healthy the basics of what he is talking about here. I generally do think that our human attitude to death is not a healthy one by far.

29:30 - end

Just a short story from his book so I skipped that for the sake of saving time. Was more listening to what he had to say, than to his "art".

Summary

My first exposure to the guy and he seems to be articulate, intelligent, heart in the right place on mental health issues. Also seems invested in his art. Whatever about any other words he has done in the past, nothing in this podcast strikes me as anything but positive. Nothing super deep or amazing to wow at of course, but generally all positive from what I can see.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not an internet warrior, but really, what do you expect? He has a plastic bag on his head! Where do you go from there like?

He mentions this in the link I refer to above. As he points out, some of the people with some of the most authority in our world (judges) have ridiculous looking wigs on their head that he thinks look like "dehydrated poodles".

While priests who have authority for some go around essentially wearing dresses or "curtains from a bin outside a brothel".

So I think it is worth looking at the content of peoples words rather than what they wear while saying it.

c_man wrote: »

Well a straight google search for Blindboy gets you his name and picture, among other details. So let's leave the anonymous thing aside as it's a non-runner

In the link I refer to above he distinguishes between total anonymity and "privacy" anonymity.

In that the number of people who used google as you just described to see what he looks like is minimal. So he can still walk down the street, sit on a bus, go into a shop, or whatever he likes and GENERALLY (almost entirely) never be recognized or approached.

So no, not seeing the anonymous thing as a "non-runner" at all.

Dannyriver

OnDraught wrote: »

I think a lot of people have a problem with the rubberbandits because they are issue jumpers. Whether it is recreational drug use, suicide, feminism or whatever it is next month. They seem to jockey on to whatever is the cause of the day. There is no follow up. This is true of most social commentators but they lose all edge and it could be anyone making the point as a result.

But they re not you see. They've been consistently talking about all those issues and in the case of suicide google 'Sonny' [which was their last song release] feminism and drug use read his book or listen to his podcast. Mind you your statement would look like it was a good summation if it was true.

Dannyriver

OnDraught wrote: »

The idea that male suicide is on the rise because of feminism is pure bollox in my opinion. The Dubliners were singing Pete st Johns lyrics in the 70’s that went

“By trade I was a cooper
Lost out to redundancy
Like my house that fell to progress
my trade's a memory”

This is nothing new and absolutely fukk all to to do with feminism. It’s a problem caused by capitalism and it’s only going to get worse.

You ve read this post out of context it's not what wibbs either said or meant at all.