Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

WinnyThePoo

Stonedpilot wrote: »

What a crazy arrogant post. So the several billion peoe who believe in God are ALL schizophrenic?!? Least diagnosed illness in the World there doc!.

I was atheist til I reached the age of reason.

Again you are confusing man made religion with God as Ive highlighted blindboy doing. Personally cant stand the Catholic Church.

In your post Same old tired tripe then follows.

Catholic Church is bad I dont like em therfore God is bad.
Its a pathetic argumemt.


Surely surely it cant be that hard to see a difference between non denominational Christianity and the Romam Catholic Church?!?!!?.


I know a 5 year old who sees the difference.

Don't do drugs kids. You could end up posting arrogant nonsense on after hours.

Nettle Soup

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Catholic Church is bad I dont like em therfore God is bad.
Its a pathetic argumemt.

Well to be fair, one actually exists and is bad. The other is propaganda by the bad organisation.

Dannyriver

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Well done medal on its way.
Surprised to see that to be honest. Still a lie he said many!.

No medal required, there are many out there partaking in dubious practices under the guise of psychotherapy.... and as you can see this person is accredited by the main Irish accrediting body which clearly means they don't have a problem with it which is why Blindboy was asking for proper regulation to prevent this practice. So no not a lie, it is ok not to question everything he says you know.

optogirl

Stonedpilot wrote: »

What a crazy arrogant post. So the several billion peoe who believe in God are ALL schizophrenic?!? Least diagnosed illness in the World there doc!.

I was atheist til I reached the age of reason.

Again you are confusing man made religion with God as Ive highlighted blindboy doing. Personally cant stand the Catholic Church.

In your post Same old tired tripe then follows.

Catholic Church is bad I dont like em therfore God is bad.
Its a pathetic argumemt.


Surely surely it cant be that hard to see a difference between non denominational Christianity and the Romam Catholic Church?!?!!?.


I know a 5 year old who sees the difference.

How about not believing in god(s)? Catholic church is bad but an absolute disbelief in god has much more to do with my atheism than the RCC.

Stonedpilot

Dannyriver wrote: »

No medal required, there are many out there partaking in dubious practices under the guise of psychotherapy.... and as you can see this person is accredited by the main Irish accrediting body which clearly means they don't have a problem with it which is why Blindboy was asking for proper regulation to prevent this practice. So no not a lie, it is ok not to question everything he says you know.

Fair enough I don't dislike Blindboy, admire his chutzpah shall we say in getting paid to voice opinions. Most of which are either self indulgent intellectualism or obvious stuff like saying water is wet

His major downfall is

I don't think he has the humility to listen to alternative arguments.

Say someone was mega depressed and got solace from angel healing, would he listen to them and try and learn from it?.

Of course not. Goes against his massive ego

He's exactly like the people he's trying to rally against. A total ego masquerading as a man of the people.

His infantile desire to shock and self indulgent obvious twaddle is one of the reason's he appeals to vacuous people who listen to him and go 'ohhhhh how profound' when he says something like here kid property prices are too high.

Dannyriver

Stonedpilot wrote: »

What a crazy arrogant post. So the several billion peoe who believe in God are ALL schizophrenic?!? Least diagnosed illness in the World there doc!.

I was atheist til I reached the age of reason.

Again you are confusing man made religion with God as Ive highlighted blindboy doing. Personally cant stand the Catholic Church.

In your post Same old tired tripe then follows.

Catholic Church is bad I dont like em therfore God is bad.
Its a pathetic argumemt.


Surely surely it cant be that hard to see a difference between non denominational Christianity and the Romam Catholic Church?!?!!?.


I know a 5 year old who sees the difference.

Where have I confused man-made religion with God. Im simply making the point that the idea of God is a creation of man through time immemorial. In every culture and time frame there s been an idea of a God like figure who controls things,. The existentialists would say this is because of the unconscious/conscious need for everlasting life or fear of nothingness after death. So the idea of a God has become a socially acceptable construct. and consequently people are allowed to believe in things like that without being required to provide empirical evidence or proof of their existence. However, because believing that I'm being controlled by a higher being who for argument's sake is called Malcolm who is half man have suasage dog is not socially acceptable I might be deemed schizophrenic were I to want to start a church called 'Malcolm' Hope that s clearer.

Dannyriver

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Fair enough I don't dislike Blindboy, admire his chutzpah shall we say in getting paid to voice opinions. Most of which are either self indulgent intellectualism or obvious stuff like saying water is wet

His major downfall is

I don't think he has the humility to listen to alternative arguments.

Say someone was mega depressed and got solace from angel healing, would he listen to them and try and learn from it?.

Of course not. Goes against his massive ego

He's exactly like the people he's trying to rally against. A total ego masquerading as a man of the people.

His infantile desire to shock and self indulgent obvious twaddle is one of the reason's he appeals to vacuous people who listen to him and go 'ohhhhh how profound' when he says something like here kid property prices are too high.

If someone is mega depressed angel reading may prevent them from doing something tangible about it so no I dont think angel reading is a feasible long term fix for mental health issues even though like medication it can give temporary solace, but the same as you I don t know how Blindboy would feel about it so unlike you Im not going to say I do know .

Also what makes you think he gets paid for voicing opinions you do know that unless you are an A lister [Blindboy himself describes himself as a Z lister in his first podcast] you don t get paid for appearing on the late late and panel shows yeah. ?

If you think anyone who listens to him Is vacuous that s a lot of vacuous people you are dismissing there and perhaps, therefore, you are the one who has the massive ego masquerading as a man of God.

mariaalice

To me he come across as someone who has found a neat way of 'doing' acting and comedy while suffering from some sort of social anxiety disorder the plastic bag is a mask that allows him to preform in public.

Dannyriver

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Danny I believe we covered this earlier?

Fair enough if you say you ve read it Ill have to believe you but in my defense, your other posts and your appreciation of the phone calls suggested to me that his book would appeal greatly to you hence I doubted you having read it. Apologies for that I dont know you and its unfair of me to accuse you of being a bull****ter.

Like i said the reason I thought you d like it is the fact that the comedy/surreal voice of the character he plays in the phone calls is all over the book. If you'll indulge me and you ve time here is a link to him reading out a story in it about a guy called Erskine Fogarty who got caught up in the whole madness of one man up ship of the celtic tiger, I know you ve read it already but Id like to hear what you think of the story with him narrating it.



The story starts at around the 11.30 mark.

https://www.acast.com/blindboy/didyoureadabouterskinefogarty-

Insect Overlord

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Of course not. Goes against his massive ego

He's exactly like the people he's trying to rally against. A total ego masquerading as a man of the people.

I think it's strange, too, to see the word "ego" used in such a negative sense in your criticism.

It takes a great deal of self-esteem and confidence to put your work out into the world for public scrutiny. Any actor, musician, sports star, visual artist, author, commentator, entertainer, or presenter you care to mention relies to a great degree on their ego. They have to believe in themselves and in their work, both in order to create the things you consume and in order to discuss them with an audience.

That tends to be the difference between success and failure. The people with the strength of character to recover from failure, learn from it, recognise constructive criticism and use it (or not) appropriately, these are the ones who "make it" on the grander stages.

Stonedpilot

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I think it's strange, too, to see the word "ego" used in such a negative sense in your criticism.

It takes a great deal of self-esteem and confidence to put your work out into the world for public scrutiny. Any actor, musician, sports star, visual artist, author, commentator, entertainer, or presenter you care to mention relies to a great degree on their ego. They have to believe in themselves and in their work, both in order to create the things you consume and in order to discuss them with an audience.

That tends to be the difference between success and failure. The people with the strength of character to recover from failure, learn from it, recognise constructive criticism and use it (or not) appropriately, these are the ones who "make it" on the grander stages.

Dont believe you need a big ego to be very successful very recent case is Rose Namajunas killing red hot favorite Johanna Jedrzeczyk in UFC. She was immensely humble in the lead up and after the fight.
Difference between self belief and ego.
Many far more successful people than Blindboy lot more humble in my opinion.


Ego just wants to be right and self validated. Hence why he needs to be heard, jumping on any bandwagon that rolls into town.

frozenfrozen

snippet of the podcast about the plastic bag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kU0mnjXYqDY

Dannyriver

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Dont believe you need a big ego to be very successful very recent case is Rose Namajunas killing red hot favorite Johanna Jedrzeczyk in UFC. She was immensely humble in the lead up and after the fight.
Difference between self belief and ego.
Many far more successful people than Blindboy lot more humble in my opinion.


Ego just wants to be right and self validated. Hence why he needs to be heard, jumping on any bandwagon that rolls into town.

I think you are reading Insect Overlords comments incorrectly, he s talking about ego in the sense of self belief and fearlessness around his work being rejected. I think you are looking at it from the point of view of the school yard where the lad who is doing something talented such as juggling a football or some other activity that takes talent and the other lads rather than applaud him or enjoy his abilities are standing by saying 'look at your man big ego on him, thinks he s great' It always says more about the onlooker than the participant. Frankly you know nothing about him and all this talk of him thinking he s great and all wise and knowing and a big ego and not humble , and whatever other **** you re pinning on him is all happening in your head. If you dig deep enough you ll probably understnd why but Im not going to guess as I dont know what you ve got going on in your life that causes Blindboy to irk you so much. At the end of the day he s just a guy trying to make a living out of being an artist.

dr.fuzzenstein

Insect Overlord wrote: »

I think it's strange, too, to see the word "ego" used in such a negative sense in your criticism.

It takes a great deal of self-esteem and confidence to put your work out into the world for public scrutiny. Any actor, musician, sports star, visual artist, author, commentator, entertainer, or presenter you care to mention relies to a great degree on their ego. They have to believe in themselves and in their work, both in order to create the things you consume and in order to discuss them with an audience.

That tends to be the difference between success and failure. The people with the strength of character to recover from failure, learn from it, recognise constructive criticism and use it (or not) appropriately, these are the ones who "make it" on the grander stages.

Yet it takes no skill, confidence or ability whatsoever to be a guttersnipe. If someone really is that upset by someone's success, well everyone is given the same chance.
If someone thinks a celebrity is untalented/stupid, they can always get off the couch and let the world marvel at their own stellar talent, humongous intellect and blinding good looks.
Writing massive online essays why someone/something is no good is a massive waste and achieves absolutely nothing except showcasing what a tool that person is.
It's a bit like these hour long YouTube videos that "prove" how bad a movie is, they could have used the same resources to make something better and let us all marvel at their genius. Unless they haven't got an such genius and are merely sh*tehawks.

NIMAN

He was on Ryan Turbidy rado show today, promoting his podcasts and book.

I wonder does he wear the bag on the radio?

david75

He explained the bag in one of his podcast episodes and it’s not rocket science. Nothing wrong with wanting to maintain some privacy and anonymity while you’re creating and putting your work out there. And looking at some of the reaction to him simply having a platform I can’t say I blame him.

NIMAN

... and of course without the bag and the silly name, he's just like me or you.

And no-one would think he's a genius, so the bag stays.

david75

This is the same thing that happened in marriage equality. There was a lot of people refused to listen to panti talking and couldn’t take what she was saying seriously as they saw it as a man in a dress. She was talking all the sense in the world but people couldn’t get past the presentation of it. Which is kinda ridiculous.

NIMAN

david75 wrote: »

This is the same thing that happened in marriage equality. There was a lot of people refused to listen to panti talking and couldn’t take what she was saying seriously as they saw it as a man in a dress. She was talking all the sense in the world but people couldn’t get past the presentation of it. Which is kinda ridiculous.

Who is ridiculous though?

Us or Blindboy?
Could Panti not have got the same message across dressed 'normally'?

I maintain that the bag makes Blindboy a celeb. Without it, he's just another punter with an opinion.

david75

NIMAN wrote: »

Who is ridiculous though?

Us or Blindboy?
Could Panti not have got the same message across dressed 'normally'?

I maintain that the bag makes Blindboy a celeb. Without it, he's just another punter with an opinion.

That’s the thing though. Why should anyone have to adjust their whole thing to make it acceptable or normal in order for it to be deemed fit for consumption or fair review? Surely it’s up to us to get past that? I can get past the plastic bag I’m listening to what the guy has to say the bag neither adds to nor takes anything away from that for me.
I’m no fanboi by no means. I gave his podcast a spin on a whim. Don’t know anything at all about them past that song they had out.

Countless artists and entertainers and bands have a totem or a gimmick. I don’t see the problem with it.

s7ryf3925pivug

They both have careers outside of being rubberbandits. Blindboy's is in academia; sociology I think; so social commentary is kinda what he does. I think he's entirely sincere with it tbh.

The plastic bag thing works. I've hung out with them and they are able to just hang out. You wouldn't necessarily pick them out of the group.

david75

Raven Rancid Slime wrote: »

They both have careers outside of being rubberbandits. Blindboy's is in academia; sociology I think; so social commentary is kinda what he does. I think he's entirely sincere with it tbh.

The plastic bag thing works. I've hung out with them and they are able to just hang out. You wouldn't necessarily pick them out of the group.

I really appreciate the fact that he’s totally eschewing the celebrity nonsense aspect. As much as you can be a celebrity in Ireland. If he was doing it to take part in that vacuous Late late show zeleb thing he’d get nothing but sh!t for it.
We just need to adjust to the fact that some people like to create to create and aren’t interested in the fame aspect/bi product of it.

Stonedpilot

Dannyriver wrote: »

I think you are reading Insect Overlords comments incorrectly, he s talking about ego in the sense of self belief and fearlessness around his work being rejected. I think you are looking at it from the point of view of the school yard where the lad who is doing something talented such as juggling a football or some other activity that takes talent and the other lads rather than applaud him or enjoy his abilities are standing by saying 'look at your man big ego on him, thinks he s great' It always says more about the onlooker than the participant. Frankly you know nothing about him and all this talk of him thinking he s great and all wise and knowing and a big ego and not humble , and whatever other **** you re pinning on him is all happening in your head. If you dig deep enough you ll probably understnd why but Im not going to guess as I dont know what you ve got going on in your life that causes Blindboy to irk you so much. At the end of the day he s just a guy trying to make a living out of being an artist.

No need to dig just think hes full of shyt. We all don't have to marvel at his alleged intellect.

The word artist has become meaningless these days.

david75

Nobody’s being forced to listen to it. And can anyone truly criticise it or even comment on it if they haven’t even listened to it just cos they don’t like the guy? Or the fact he has a bag on his head?

Dannyriver

Stonedpilot wrote: »

No need to dig just think hes full of shyt. We all don't have to marvel at his alleged intellect.

The word artist has become meaningless these days.

You re the only one on here that s been talking about his intellect alleged or not.

Musician, songwriter, producer, comedian, documentary maker, author....what exactly does constitute an artist in your view.

NIMAN

Raven Rancid Slime wrote: »

They both have careers outside of being rubberbandits. Blindboy's is in academia; sociology I think; so social commentary is kinda what he does. I think he's entirely sincere with it tbh. .

You mean Dave Chambers is in academia....would like to think that in his real job he doesn't call himself a silly name.

Dannyriver

NIMAN wrote: »

You mean Dave Chambers is in academia....would like to think that in his real job he doesn't call himself a silly name.

It seems amazing that this has to be explained but I guess that s where we are. He wears the bag when he is being Blindboy then when he s off stage or not doing radio/TV interviews as Blindboy like when he s out watching a band or in the pub or meeting his friends he takes the bag off and returns to being Dave.So yes what you would like to think is indeed true. :eek:

Ulysses Gaze

The bag over his head is the last thing that I would criticise him for.

His belief that the one thing vulnerable young men need is feminism is correct if we are talking about traditional feminism. But if he means modern, and very, toxic third/fourth wave feminism then he is quite frankly talking bollocks.

david75

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The bag over his head is the last thing that I would criticise him for.

His belief that the one thing vulnerable young men need is feminism is correct if we are talking about traditional feminism. But if he means modern, and very, toxic third/fourth wave feminism then he is quite frankly talking bollocks.

I think he’s using broad strokes and asking his considerable audience of younger lads to listen and get in tune with feminism rather than any particular brand of it

Wibbs

david75 wrote: »

I think he’s using broad strokes and asking his considerable audience of younger lads to listen and get in tune with feminism rather than any particular brand of it

And it's still mindbendingly moronic a suggestion. Why the hell would any man look to feminism to help him? Feminism is as the name suggests always has been and is for women(fair enough), modern feminism demonises men at every turn, so what the fcuk it has to do with young men is beyond me, beyond idiotic to believe otherwise and beyond a joke to promote it.

Stonedpilot

Dannyriver wrote: »

You re the only one on here that s been talking about his intellect alleged or not.

Musician, songwriter, producer, comedian, documentary maker, author....what exactly does constitute an artist in your view.

Someone who makes relevant art.

If you see him as all those things then you really seeing him through rose tinted glasses. We all don't see him with gooey besotted eyes, some of us see him for the big eejit he is.

Musician,comedian etc is really stretching it. If I have a bit of fame and I fart into a traffic cone and loop it and release it as a single does that make me a musician?.

Same artistic merit as his cough music cough.

Insect Overlord

Stonedpilot wrote: »

If I have a bit of fame and I fart into a traffic cone and loop it and release it as a single does that make me a musician?.

Same artistic merit as his cough music cough.

Couldn't be any worse than your posts in this thread, tbh...

Stonedpilot

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Couldn't be any worse than your posts in this thread, tbh...

Ohhhh it hurts. Zing!.

Haha ah come on pal you have to reference my silly wit to try and burn me?.

Or to quote Herman Melville it is better to fail in originality than to succeed in failure.
Though I feel if you ever had an original thought it would die of loneliness.

I'd bet you are waiting patiently for your fanboys to come along and like your post now. :rolleyes:

Mokuba

Wibbs wrote: »

And it's still mindbendingly moronic a suggestion. Why the hell would any man look to feminism to help him? Feminism is as the name suggests always has been and is for women(fair enough), modern feminism demonises men at every turn, so what the fcuk it has to do with young men is beyond me, beyond idiotic to believe otherwise and beyond a joke to promote it.

Absolutely agree. Completely ridiculous that he is advocating for young men to become feminists as a way to solve their problems.

david75

Mokuba wrote: »

Absolutely agree. Completely ridiculous that he is advocating for young men to become feminists as a way to solve their problems.

I don’t think that’s what he was doing at all but whatever.

Mokuba

david75 wrote: »

I don’t think that’s what he was doing at all but whatever.

Of course he is

I personally think that what these young men need is feminism – because when I’m down in Limerick speaking to lads that I know who are suffering from mental health issues, when I actually speak to them and get to the core of ‘what’s bothering you man?’ what they always say to me is ‘I have nothing to offer a woman’.

Can people stop giving this clown a voice.

Ulysses Gaze

david75 wrote: »

I think he’s using broad strokes and asking his considerable audience of younger lads to listen and get in tune with feminism rather than any particular brand of it

Which makes it a hugely broad,and dangerous, statement to make as certain strands of modern Feminism have evolved into something that is borderline psychotic. As evidenced by some of the bile spouted by certain spokespeople for some of these third and fourth wave strands.

If you are going to make a statement as he did on national TV, either be very specific about what you are talking about or steer well clear of the topic altogether.

Stonedpilot

Mokuba wrote: »

Absolutely agree. Completely ridiculous that he is advocating for young men to become feminists as a way to solve their problems.

+1.

Probably one one of the dumbest points ever made on the Late Late ever and that's saying something. The irony is the guy lives in la la land and is championed by RTE so thinks it was profound and savvy.

If Tubs had a pair of balls he would have simply asked the simple question

'Blindboy how can young men becoming feminists cure them of their loneliness,misfortune and depression?.




Such flawed logic it's almost unbelievable.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mokuba wrote: »

Of course he is Can people stop giving this clown a voice.

But you only quoted half of what was said there. And quotes taken out of context almost always get distorted.

He THEN went on to clarify what he meant by that. And what he meant by it is that he sees feminism as making women and men equal and that this attitude he has encountered in some men of "I as a man need to have something to offer women" needs to be replaced by the concept of seeing the man and woman in any relationship as equals.

So this view of the man's place to be about "providing for a woman" is outdated in his view and he defines feminism as "Not about females being powerful but about redressing a balance and being about equality".

Not seeing any wrong with any of what he said myself to be honest. And rather than listen to what he said on the matter of feminism we see people on this thread introduce THEIR interpretation of "feminism" or "modern feminism" and judging what the speaker said by THOSE lights and definitions rather than his own. As with many things alas, I think we have a single word "feminism" which has come to mean too many different things to too many people. And as always when a word comes to mean too much, it ends up meaning too little.

So rather than single sentences taken out of the whole, people are welcome to listen to the entire monologue here.

RGDATA!

NIMAN wrote: »

... and of course without the bag and the silly name, he's just like me or you.

link us to your tunes and your book.

RGDATA!

RGDATA! wrote: »

link us to your tunes and your book.

In fairness, yer man that YouTuber cian whatsisface has a book out atm..if someone has any bit of a public profile it seems it's the first thing they do now..is it just a revenue streams thing maybe?..how many books has roz Purcell out now?

Mokuba

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But you only quoted half of what was said there. And quotes taken out of context almost always get distorted.

He THEN went on to clarify what he meant by that. And what he meant by it is that he sees feminism as making women and men equal and that this attitude he has encountered in some men of "I as a man need to have something to offer women" needs to be replaced by the concept of seeing the man and woman in any relationship as equals.

So this view of the man's place to be about "providing for a woman" is outdated in his view and he defines feminism as "Not about females being powerful but about redressing a balance and being about equality".

Not seeing any wrong with any of what he said myself to be honest. And rather than listen to what he said on the matter of feminism we see people on this thread introduce THEIR interpretation of "feminism" or "modern feminism" and judging what the speaker said by THOSE lights and definitions rather than his own.

So rather than single sentences taken out of the whole, people are welcome to listen to the entire monologue here.

Men are always going to want to be a provider, feminism or not. It's a natural instinct. Feminism would have you believe otherwise. Yes it's increasingly likely that both partners will be on the same money or women could be the primary breadwinner, but the natural biological impulse will exist regardless.

Are you telling me that that is reason alone to buy into feminism?

Because if you're a lost/depressed young man and you are looking for help on a male issue - feminism is not going to help you.

It doesn't care about how boys do in school. Only girls. It doesn't care about men being under-represented in certain jobs. Only women. It doesn't care about male domestic abuse rates, about male suicide rates, about fathers rights, about the constant coverage in the media of a man as a buffoon and a woman as the one with cop-on. Constantly hearing about rape culture, gender pay gap, men being dominant/overpowering etc.

You can't just join feminism and take one thing on board.

Ulysses Gaze

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But you only quoted half of what was said there. And quotes taken out of context almost always get distorted.

He THEN went on to clarify what he meant by that. And what he meant by it is that he sees feminism as making women and men equal and that this attitude he has encountered in some men of "I as a man need to have something to offer women" needs to be replaced by the concept of seeing the man and woman in any relationship as equals.

So this view of the man's place to be about "providing for a woman" is outdated in his view and he defines feminism as "Not about females being powerful but about redressing a balance and being about equality".

Not seeing any wrong with any of what he said myself to be honest. And rather than listen to what he said on the matter of feminism we see people on this thread introduce THEIR interpretation of "feminism" or "modern feminism" and judging what the speaker said by THOSE lights and definitions rather than his own. As with many things alas, I think we have a single word "feminism" which has come to mean too many different things to too many people. And as always when a word comes to mean too much, it ends up meaning too little.

So rather than single sentences taken out of the whole, people are welcome to listen to the entire monologue here.

So how is his interpretation on feminism the correct one? It is, after all, just his opinion. And it should be open to criticism.

How is it any more correct than some of the posters here, many of whom may admire traditional feminist discourse but cannot abide the modern third/fourth wave equivalents?

Insect Overlord

Mokuba wrote: »

Men are always going to want to be a provider, feminism or not. It's a natural instinct. Feminism would have you believe otherwise. Yes it's increasingly likely that both partners will be on the same money or women could be the primary breadwinner, but the natural biological impulse will exist regardless.

Are you telling me that that is reason alone to buy into feminism?

Because if you're a lost/depressed young man and you are looking for help on a male issue - feminism is not going to help you.

The point is not to take on board the entire complicated mess that is feminism. One simply has to recognise men and women as equal, and to remember that when they feel under pressure to provide. It's about building a sense of self-esteem and self-worth and seeing the good in yourself, instead of judging yourself by your failures to live up to traditional or old-fashioned ideals.

nozzferrahhtoo

Mokuba wrote: »

Men are always going to want to be a provider, feminism or not. It's a natural instinct.

Speak for yourself I guess. It certainly does not represent me. I see my partner as just that, a partner. We do not provide for each other. We provide equally for our relationship and our children. The concept that I as a male am somehow the provider for my mate is one I have divested myself of a LONG time ago.

But I am not making that point so much as I was pointing out that that IS the point Blindboy was making. I am making the distinction between being clear what his point was, and whether the point is a good one or not. And I think when one or two sentences was taken out of the monologue as a whole........ it lost much of the meaning it originally held.

Mokuba wrote: »

Because if you're a lost/depressed young man and you are looking for help on a male issue - feminism is not going to help you.

Again that does not appear to be what the guy was saying when you listen to the entire talk rather than the sentences pulled out of it. Rather he was specifically addressing the issue of men who have problems due to their feelings they have "nothing to offer a woman". And he suggested certain aspects of feminism.... that of equality between the sexes...... would address that issue.

To then generalize his statement to all "young men with male issues" and ask does feminism help GENERALLY with that..... I think is to miss the point that was made in context.

His specific point..... that feelings of having nothing to offer women might be addressed by combating the narrative that men have to provide for women......... is not one I can find much to disagree with.

Mokuba wrote: »

You can't just join feminism and take one thing on board.

Again I think the issue there is that the word means too many things to too many people. You are taking the most noxious definition of it, and representations of it, and judging the comments of another person by YOUR definition of it rather than by theirs. Which in just about no conversation ever, is that going to be a useful approach.

If you parse his comments through HIS definition of feminism, rather than your own, you find they get rendered somewhat more sensibly. Try listening to the entire talk again, but every time he says feminism replace it in your mind with his definition of "Women not being powerful, but equality between the sexes" and THEN tell me what part of his statement does not parse as useful or true to you.

sentient_6

There's a certain irony about his persona being attacked on boards of all places, when everyone here hides behind a handle.

The OP ranting about him calls himself Sky King, to quote the Bandits if it was anymore ironic it would be Fe on the periodic table.

Stonedpilot

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The point is not to take on board the entire complicated mess that is feminism. One simply has to recognise men and women as equal, and to remember that when they feel under pressure to provide. It's about building a sense of self-esteem and self-worth and seeing the good in yourself, instead of judging yourself by your failures to live up to traditional or old-fashioned ideals.

And how does promoting feminism which is one gender only (in fact see's men in a adversarial position) advocate equality?.

His point was a garbled illogical mess. He's sucking in too much fumes from them plastic bags, only God knows what chemical garbage is in them.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

So how is his interpretation on feminism the correct one?

I didn't say it was

Rather what I am saying is that when ANYONE uses a word X, and you have a different definition of X than that person does........ then it is not sensible to parse THEIR comments through YOUR definition of the word.

I think words and language are contextual and many words have very fixed meanings, but many words also have very diverse meanings to different people. And some words are so general as to have little meaning at all (take the word sport for example, which describes MMA fighting and lawn bowling. Then consider just how much MMA and lawn bowling have in common really. Or take the word "religion" and then use it to find the common ground between a dedicated Muslim and a dedicated Jain.).

The only thing I see useful coming out of it is to realize just how dilute and useless the WORD has become, rather than the movements and ideas people have while using that word.

Mokuba

Insect Overlord wrote: »

The point is not to take on board the entire complicated mess that is feminism. One simply has to recognise men and women as equal, and to remember that when they feel under pressure to provide. It's about building a sense of self-esteem and self-worth and seeing the good in yourself, instead of judging yourself by your failures to live up to traditional or old-fashioned ideals.

Absolutely men and women are equal and should be seen as such. But feminism is not going to take away a natural biological impulse. Women are seen as the nurturer and are supported as such in custody cases but nobody cares about that. People can say whatever they want but on some level these are always going to exist because we have been programmed that way since the dawn of mankind.

He talks about paying for dates, and I can't believe I'm going to use this as an example, but on the show First Dates, there is almost an obligation on the man to pay and should he offer to go equal - then he is looked at as a leper. Feminism is not telling men to only pay half for meals out. It's happy for men to go on doing that - only equal with it suits women in my opinion (not every woman obviously)

If it's about building up a sense of self esteem and self worth then why is he not advocating exercise, hobbies and education to young men? If you feel down on yourself then invest in yourself as a person rather than investing in an often toxic ideology. Saying feminism is the answer is rubbish in my view.

kylith

Wibbs wrote: »

And it's still mindbendingly moronic a suggestion. Why the hell would any man look to feminism to help him? Feminism is as the name suggests always has been and is for women(fair enough), modern feminism demonises men at every turn, so what the fcuk it has to do with young men is beyond me, beyond idiotic to believe otherwise and beyond a joke to promote it.

Men have a lot to thank feminism for: contraceptives being available, not being expected to get married young cos you've gotten someone pregnant, not being expected to be sole provider for a family, expanding the definition of rape to include men, liberating women to work outside the home and be doctors (for example) liberated men to be stay-at-home dads and pursue more 'female' careers such as nursing, expanding parental leave to include men, allowing men to feel more comfortable expressing emotion.

Feminism has done a hell of a lot more for men than 'men's rights activists' have done. The fact that some feminists (#NotAllX works both ways) are msandrist bibes is beside the point.