Let's all take Blindboy seriously now...

Ulysses Gaze

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.



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.



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.

But his definition is too broad because the most visible elements of feminism in the media or online are the most virulent and noxious strains of it.

These are the elements that contradict a lot of the theory posited by traditional gender equality theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kylith
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.

Bingo. Traditional feminism.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

But his definition is too broad because the most visible elements of feminism in the media or online are the most virulent and noxious strains of it.

Again language is contextual though. He gave his definition of it that was relevant to what he was saying in that moment. What his actual and full definition of it is is anyone's guess.

The point, again, being that he used the word feminism while making a point. Rather than consider the point and parse it through HIS usage of that word.......... people here are moving to parse his point through their OWN usage of that word.

And that, for me, is simply not how language and discourse works. But granted, when a word becomes that toxic and dilute in it's meaning to many people, it is questionable as to the wisdom of using it at all. Sam Harris made a similar speech a few years back for example on the utility of using the word "atheism" any more for many reasons I would think similar.

Hande hoche!

Stonedpilot wrote: »

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.

That's an interesting point. Could be all the BPA and only knows what else leaching into his skin.

david75

I took him to mean he was speaking about lads on housing estates hanging out in a very much bs typical macho lad culture cos that’s what their mates do and they don’t feel they fit into that but they do it to fit in.
He wasn’t pushing some feminazi agenda on them ffs. He was just suggesting it’s ok for them to tune into a softer edge to begin with and it’s ok to do that and grow some respect for themselves and others out if that.

Insect Overlord

Mokuba wrote: »

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.

That's definitely part of the process, of course. It's something he covered in a bit more detail in one of the podcasts, but not on the Late Late Show.

The feminism conversation is only a small part of finding solutions to a much wider, more complicated problem. Suicide continues to be a major issue in Blindboy's home city. Hobbies, education, exercise, better diet, not being dependent on alcohol and/or other drugs, there are many other elements to the debate. It's all about developing healthy coping mechanisms for when life gets hard.

Learning how to communicate is a big part of that. Recognising one's own emotions, identifying why you feel a particular way at a particular time, expressing those feelings in a healthy way, etc. Some people are great at listening and chatting. Some write songs or poems or essays. Some come on Boards and argue with strangers. :pac:

Unfortunately, too many people binge, over-dose, or go for a long lie down in the deepest, coldest part of the river. Changing someone's mindset about success/failure as "a man" can help prevent that in some cases.

Stonedpilot

david75 wrote: »

I took him to mean he was speaking about lads on housing estates hanging out in a very much bs typical macho lad culture cos that’s what their mates do and they don’t feel they fit into that but they do it to fit in.
He wasn’t pushing some feminazi agenda on them ffs. He was just suggesting it’s ok for them to tune into a softer edge to begin with and it’s ok to do that and grow some respect for themselves and others out if that.

Therfore why not say it like yourself so rather than shyte on men need feminism?.
Say there is no need to be macho, it's OK be vunerable and scared etc.

Also going on be happy to have women pay for your meal. Not really something feminism pushes in fairness.

'Let a woman pay for your dinner, if you're cool with that you are a feminist'?.

Yet to see one article ever by a feminist writer telling women to pay for men's meals. I believe it adovates the total opposite.

The guy was so contradictory with his point I'd say he was dizzy.

david75

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Therfore why not say it like yourself so rather than shyte on men need feminism?.
Say there is no need to be macho, it's OK be vunerable and scared etc.

Also going on be happy to have women pay for your meal. Not really something feminism pushes in fairness.

'Let a woman pay for your dinner, if you're cool with that you are a feminist'?.

Yet to see one article ever by a feminist writer telling women to pay for men's meals. I believe it adovates the total opposite.

The guy was so contradictory with his point I'd say he was dizzy.

As to the meal aspect I think you missed the point. Your typical lad in that situation would no way never allow a woman pay for his meal. He used that example as a simple one to talk to lads in that’s situation andxlet them know it’s ok to not be dominate male / classic stereotype of the man being provider.
He’s using fairly simple examples to unlock it for lads on a basic level.

You’re bringing a high mindedness to it and that’s ok but the lads he’s speaking to and trying to reach don’t think in those terms or In your view of it.

He has a HUGE follwowing in 18-30 year olds all over the world. And he’s trying to do his bit to open their minds a bit and disarm them of some possibly toxic notions of their own masculinity.

What harm in that?

Mokuba

Insect Overlord wrote: »

That's definitely part of the process, of course. It's something he covered in a bit more detail in one of the podcasts, but not on the Late Late Show.

The feminism conversation is only a small part of finding solutions to a much wider, more complicated problem. Suicide continues to be a major issue in Blindboy's home city. Hobbies, education, exercise, better diet, not being dependent on alcohol and/or other drugs, there are many other elements to the debate. It's all about developing healthy coping mechanisms for when life gets hard.

Learning how to communicate is a big part of that. Recognising one's own emotions, identifying why you feel a particular way at a particular time, expressing those feelings in a healthy way, etc. Some people are great at listening and chatting. Some write songs or poems or essays. Some come on Boards and argue with strangers. :pac:

Unfortunately, too many people binge, over-dose, or go for a long lie down in the deepest, coldest part of the river. Changing someone's mindset about success/failure as "a man" can help prevent that in some cases.

Fair enough.

Wibbs

kylith wrote: »

Men have a lot to thank feminism for: contraceptives being available,

The invention or availability of modern contraceptives had eff all to do with feminism.

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.

Much of that has eff all to do with feminism either(or hasn't changed much at all). Economics has had far more of an influence for example. Oh and BTW male rape has always been recognised as a crime in law. So yeah I'll have whatever you're smoking because it's clearly good stuff.

um7y1h83ge06nx

I would argue that modern feminism is more likely to make a young man even more depressed if he was depressed already. Men are often portrayed as being dangerous and a problem by many modern feminists.

Stonedpilot

david75 wrote: »

As to the meal aspect I think you missed the point. Your typical lad in that situation would no way never allow a woman pay for his meal. He used that example as a simple one to talk to lads in that’s situation andxlet them know it’s ok to not be dominate male / classic stereotype of the man being provider.
He’s using fairly simple examples to unlock it for lads on a basic level.

You’re bringing a high mindedness to it and that’s ok but the lads he’s speaking to and trying to reach don’t think in those terms or In your view of it.

He has a HUGE follwowing in 18-30 year olds all over the world. And he’s trying to do his bit to open their minds a bit and disarm them of some possibly toxic notions of their own masculinity.

What harm in that?

Two different things though.
Being a stong minded male and patriarchy type male are two different things though.

A strong minded masculine man would have no problem with a woman paying for his meal, indeed might expect it.

A patriarchy thinking man might have a problem with it as he has to be the provider.

But the first guy might not be a provider type at all. Think Frank TJ Mackie type from Memento.

Anyways that's my concern, people like Blindboy having a huge following.

Really is a case of the Blind leading the blinds.

Insect Overlord

sentient_6 wrote: »

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.

I think it's fitting, in a way. The Bandits are majorly influenced by the work of Brian O'Nolan. He's more often recognised by the pen-names Flann O'Brien and Myles na gCopaleen, and also used to write letters to the Irish Times under a variety of other pseudonyms, and then respond to himself with still other names. The original sock-puppet of Irish media!

Dannyriver

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

Did Kevin Barry call Cian's book 'mad wild hysterical a brilliant debut' or Danny Boyle call Cian's book 'Essential' ...If you don't know who those guys are google them. And just so you know in your future work as art critic on here all books don t have the same words inside them.

Stonedpilot

Kinsley Future Carrot wrote: »

I would argue that modern feminism is more likely to make a young man even more depressed if he was depressed already. Men are often portrayed as being dangerous and a problem by many modern feminists.

+1. Very true.

Dannyriver

Dannyriver wrote: »

Did Kevin Barry call Cian's book 'mad wild hysterical a brilliant debut' or Danny Boyle call Cian's book 'Essential' ...If you don't know who those guys are google them. And just so you know in your future work as art critic on here all books don t have the same words inside them.

yeah, it's a modern day crime and punishment I'm sure..

Dannyriver

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.

Finally a simple explanation in bite-size, fair play.

Dannyriver

Deleted User wrote: »

yeah, it's a modern day crime and punishment I'm sure..

Yeah I know you dont like the guy but what do you think of the point Im making re all books arent the same.
Awards and honours[edit]
2007: Rooney Prize for Irish Literature (There are Little Kingdoms)
2011: Costa Book Award, shortlist (City of Bohane)
2012: The Sunday Times EFG Private Bank Short Story Award (Beer Trip to Llandudno)[18][19]
2012: Authors' Club First Novel Award (City of Bohane)[20]
2013: International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award (City of Bohane)[21]
2013: Edge Hill University Short Story Prize (Dark Lies the Island)[22]
2015: Goldsmiths Prize (Beatlebone)[1

And What do you make of the winner of the following awards for literature calling it 'A Brilliant Debut'

Ulysses Gaze

Dannyriver wrote: »

Did Kevin Barry call Cian's book 'mad wild hysterical a brilliant debut' or Danny Boyle call Cian's book 'Essential' ...If you don't know who those guys are google them. And just so you know in your future work as art critic on here all books don t have the same words inside them.

Ahem..

From Anthony Horowitz....

How many books can one man recommend? I sometimes feel that my name is on the cover of more books than I've actually written myself, which is worrying. I've endorsed children's authors as diverse as Suzanne Collins, Meg Rosoff, Simon Mayo and the late, great Robert Cormier. I found the historian, Nicholas Rankin, to be "completely delightful", and the poet, Roger McGough, "wise, funny and sad". The thriller writer, Stephen Leather, delivered in my opinion, "a wicked read" although I notice I've been bumped off the front cover of the latest edition by James Herbert ("another great thriller with a devilish twist"), which I do find slightly hurtful. I even turned up on a self-help book I hadn't read – the publishers took my name and helped themselves.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2012/may/11/cover-blurb-book-recommendation

Dannyriver

Dannyriver wrote: »

Yeah I know you dont like the guy but what do you think of the point Im making re all books arent the same.
Awards and honours[edit]
2007: Rooney Prize for Irish Literature (There are Little Kingdoms)
2011: Costa Book Award, shortlist (City of Bohane)
2012: The Sunday Times EFG Private Bank Short Story Award (Beer Trip to Llandudno)[18][19]
2012: Authors' Club First Novel Award (City of Bohane)[20]
2013: International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award (City of Bohane)[21]
2013: Edge Hill University Short Story Prize (Dark Lies the Island)[22]
2015: Goldsmiths Prize (Beatlebone)[1

And What do you make of the winner of the following awards for literature calling it 'A Brilliant Debut'

Meh, tbh I don't necessarily not like the guy..I thought a couple of his early videos were funny ish..He got annoying then though, as most of them do that seem to hit the spotlight playing a character, and then get stuck in some kind of loop playing the same character ad finitum..same as happened to blindboy in a sense..but yeah, my comment was more in relation to releasing a book being the done thing by certain minor celebrities..
I actually checked Amazon to see how many books roz Purcell had released after making that comment, and I'm seeing her face in ads here and on Facebook since..you see..some of us suffer for our art..

david75

If he bothers you that much you could just not pay attention to him and tune him out. Jus sayin.

Stonedpilot

david75 wrote: »

If he bothers you that much you could just not pay attention to him and tune him out. Jus sayin.

Nah rather whinge about him online pal.:cool:

david75

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Nah rather whinge about him online pal.:cool:

What even are Internet forums if they aren’t for lads who clearly didn’t get enough hugs off mammy to project their pain onto everything.

Stonedpilot

david75 wrote: »

What even are Internet forums if they aren’t for lads who clearly didn’t get enough hugs off mammy to project their pain onto everything.

May I ask why are you telling us about yourself pal?.

Over 4,500 whinging posts that's a lot of projecting. I agree.

Here's a hug. God bless.

johnnyskeleton

Wibbs wrote: »

The invention or availability of modern contraceptives had eff all to do with feminism.

That's not entirely true. Marie Stopes is a feminist icon because she advocated for free contraceptives for working class people. Though it did appear that after her death she was really doing so because she believed in eugenics and wanted to reduce the family size of the "lower classes".

She's very different to other great feminists like Emily Pankhurst, who worked tirelessly to get the vote for women....until WWI broke out when she stopped to shame men who didn't voluntarily enlist into fighting and dying in the trenches as part of the white feather campaign.

nozzferrahhtoo

At the behest of a few users on the thread I did work through his podcasts. I even broke one down on an earlier post and found nothing at all wrong with it.

Listened to the rest over the last few days too and again it was all not only ok, but all stuff I ENTIRELY agree with and often say myself. I was genuinely trying to find out what it is people here have an issue with about him. He comes across as someone who takes stuff seriously without taking himself too seriously. And I was struggling to find anything I disagree with him on at all. At most I found a few things I think I could enter into dialog with him on and add a good bit of depth and nuance to his position, but without really altering it much.

The most recent podcast however is well outside my comfort / knowledge zone. Because he is talking about things I admit having zero knowledge about, I genuinely do not know how to parse or judge any of it. It all sounds conspiracy theory stuff, from some things going on in Irish History, to how cannabis is being grown by Chinese Triad gangs in Ireland inside all the Chinese Take aways as part of a Chinese take away protection racket. And so on and more.

It is so far outside stuff I involve myself with and have educated myself on, that I can not even judge the podcast and point to which bits are factual (if any) and which is just total conspiracy theory nonsense (if any). Someone more informed on Irish history and/or the current situation of cannabis production in Ireland will have to listen to this recent podcast and parse it for me if they have a moment.

One eyed Jack

david75 wrote: »

As to the meal aspect I think you missed the point. Your typical lad in that situation would no way never allow a woman pay for his meal. He used that example as a simple one to talk to lads in that’s situation andxlet them know it’s ok to not be dominate male / classic stereotype of the man being provider.
He’s using fairly simple examples to unlock it for lads on a basic level.

You’re bringing a high mindedness to it and that’s ok but the lads he’s speaking to and trying to reach don’t think in those terms or In your view of it.

The problem with blindboys suggestion that men of that mindset adopt feminism and view themselves as equal to women is that it goes against their very nature. It's fake, it's about as authentic as blindboys persona. It still doesn't address their underlying issue that they feel they aren't able to provide, and telling them they shouldn't feel like they have to provide isn't going to change their perception of reality where Emma Watson who championed the He4She campaign, says that she still prefers a man to pay for dinner.

Of course it's a basic example, and it's one that is just no reflection of reality for those men, it's too basic as it tries to encourage men to externalise their problems rather than examines what they can do to put themselves in the position of being capable of being a provider.

He has a HUGE follwowing in 18-30 year olds all over the world. And he’s trying to do his bit to open their minds a bit and disarm them of some possibly toxic notions of their own masculinity.

What harm in that?

First of all, let's not exaggerate. He doesn't have a huge following in 18 - 30 year olds all over the world, his persona is barely recognised in Ireland, let alone outside of Ireland. Secondly, the problem with what he's suggesting is exactly what you've just described - the ideology he's promoting encourages young men to view their masculinity as toxic. What's toxic about wanting to be in a position to be able to provide for someone or to be able to provide for a family? Because that's exactly what someone means when they say they have nothing to offer a woman. Telling them that they shouldn't think of themselves as a provider you might as well cut their balls off and be done with it, you still won't come close to actually providing them with any sort of a solution to their issues, which are often caused.by the lack of employment prospects and support.

Blindboy is surely contradicting himself when he complains that among his friends, none of them can afford to buy a house. If he truly believed the nonsense he was spouting about how young men should adopt feminism and we've all bought into neoliberalism and all the rest of it, then one would expect the last thing he should be worried about is ownership of property?

He could simply rid himself of toxic notions of materialism and I dunno, the State will provide... but that brings us back to the issues faced by the young men he's purporting to represent with his adopted persona, that of the underclass in society, who are dependent upon the State to provide for them, because they aren't even in a position to provide for themselves, and that's why they feel they have nothing to offer a woman, and yes, that is depressing.

That's why adopting an ideology which is based purely upon idealism and is no reflection of reality, isn't going to address what those young men see as their reality.

kylith

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

She's very different to other great feminists like Emily Pankhurst, who worked tirelessly to get the vote for women....until WWI broke out when she stopped to shame men who didn't voluntarily enlist into fighting and dying in the trenches as part of the white feather campaign.

Women weren't allowed to enlist in the army. A rule which certainly wasn't brought in by feminists.

david75

Stonedpilot wrote: »

May I ask why are you telling us about yourself pal?.

Over 4,500 whinging posts that's a lot of projecting. I agree.

Here's a hug. God bless.

Most of them in the Star Wars thread all excited about the new film.

Sitting around cranking and moaning about someone else’s success isn’t my thing.thanks for the hug though. Back at ye.

david75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem with blindboys suggestion that men of that mindset adopt feminism and view themselves as equal to women is that it goes against their very nature. It's fake, it's about as authentic as blindboys persona. It still doesn't address their underlying issue that they feel they aren't able to provide, and telling them they shouldn't feel like they have to provide isn't going to change their perception of reality where Emma Watson who championed the He4She campaign, says that she still prefers a man to pay for dinner.

Of course it's a basic example, and it's one that is just no reflection of reality for those men, it's too basic as it tries to encourage men to externalise their problems rather than examines what they can do to put themselves in the position of being capable of being a provider.





First of all, let's not exaggerate. He doesn't have a huge following in 18 - 30 year olds all over the world, his persona is barely recognised in Ireland, let alone outside of Ireland. Secondly, the problem with what he's suggesting is exactly what you've just described - the ideology he's promoting encourages young men to view their masculinity as toxic. What's toxic about wanting to be in a position to be able to provide for someone or to be able to provide for a family? Because that's exactly what someone means when they say they have nothing to offer a woman. Telling them that they shouldn't think of themselves as a provider you might as well cut their balls off and be done with it, you still won't come close to actually providing them with any sort of a solution to their issues, which are often caused.by the lack of employment prospects and support.

Blindboy is surely contradicting himself when he complains that among his friends, none of them can afford to buy a house. If he truly believed the nonsense he was spouting about how young men should adopt feminism and we've all bought into neoliberalism and all the rest of it, then one would expect the last thing he should be worried about is ownership of property?

He could simply rid himself of toxic notions of materialism and I dunno, the State will provide... but that brings us back to the issues faced by the young men he's purporting to represent with his adopted persona, that of the underclass in society, who are dependent upon the State to provide for them, because they aren't even in a position to provide for themselves, and that's why they feel they have nothing to offer a woman, and yes, that is depressing.

That's why adopting an ideology which is based purely upon idealism and is no reflection of reality, isn't going to address what those young men see as their reality.

As of last week he has 80,000 subscribers on iTunes and the analytics showed him the demographics. He’s been at the top of the iTunes podcasts chart for about three or four weeks. He’s talking about what he knows and where he’s from. A city with an extreme suicide problem among young men up to 30. And he’s speaking to them in a language they understand. If it seems idealistic or doesn’t work for you personally that’s grand. Leave him to it. You don’t know what those young lads mindsets are like luckily and they wouldn’t understand where you’re coming from with it at all. Nor do I tbh. If it works for them leave them and him to it.

If you can’t contribute don’t get in the way of someone who is. Snarking from the sidelines doesn’t achieve anything. Particularly on the Internet.

Dannyriver

Deleted User wrote: »

Meh, tbh I don't necessarily not like the guy..I thought a couple of his early videos were funny ish..He got annoying then though, as most of them do that seem to hit the spotlight playing a character, and then get stuck in some kind of loop playing the same character ad finitum..same as happened to blindboy in a sense..but yeah, my comment was more in relation to releasing a book being the done thing by certain minor celebrities..
I actually checked Amazon to see how many books roz Purcell had released after making that comment, and I'm seeing her face in ads here and on Facebook since..you see..some of us suffer for our art..

So you equate a factual book on diet and exercise [Roz Purcell] with a book of short stories that are entirely fictional or am I misrepresenting you here?

Dannyriver

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Ahem..

From Anthony Horowitz....



https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2012/may/11/cover-blurb-book-recommendation

So you are suggesting that the Kevin Barry and Danny Boyle didn t read the book or give these quotes and the publishers just made them up and stuck them on the cover Yeah?

One eyed Jack

david75 wrote: »

As of last week he has 80,000 subscribers on iTunes and the analytics showed him the demographics. He’s been at the top of the iTunes podcasts chart for about three or four weeks.

80,000 subscribers on iTunes is nothing, seriously.

He’s talking about what he knows and where he’s from.

He's talking about what he knows, no question there, but clearly he doesn't know a whole lot about much else, let alone where he pretends he's from, or wants people to think that's where he's from. If he were talking about where he's from, then he wouldn't be adopting a persona from the other side of the city.

A city with an extreme suicide problem among young men up to 30.

If you'd said an extreme unemployment problem in some areas of the city among young men under 30, I'd have said fair enough, but an extreme suicide problem among young men under 30 across the city itself is an exaggeration.

And he’s speaking to them in a language they understand.

No he isn't. He's full of shìt, which is why he's popular amongst other people who are themselves, also full of shìt.

If it seems idealistic or doesn’t work for you personally that’s grand. Leave him to it. You don’t know what those young lads mindsets are like luckily and they wouldn’t understand where you’re coming from with it at all. Nor do I tbh. If it works for them leave them and him to it.

I've been working with them and talking with them every day mate for the last 40 years, not just in Limerick but in the town where I grew up which became a dead town with no employment prospects and not a snowballs chance in hell of ever owning a house when Dubs moved down and bought up all the shoebox housing pricing the people who grew up in the town out of the market.

I'm not surprised you don't know where I'm coming from, but the young men who struggle to get into education, stay in education, get employment and stay in employment, certainly know where I'm coming from. It's an awful shìtty feeling for a lot of young men that they imagine their prospects are so poor and of course that's going to affect their outlook on life and their perception of their value to society and their place in society. Feminism is going to do fcukall for those young men.

If you can’t contribute don’t get in the way of someone who is. Snarking from the sidelines doesn’t achieve anything. Particularly on the Internet.

What's with this "particularly on the internet" and "internet warriors" stuff from earlier in the thread, as though because we are somewhat anonymous, our opinions shouldn't be taken seriously? Yet isn't that the very expectation you're asking of people when they're presented with a guy who is somewhat anonymous by virtue of the plastic bag on his head? If you're suggesting that the opinions of anonymous randomers shouldn't be taken seriously, then why would you expect a different standard to apply to some anonymous randomer with a plastic bag on his head?

That's the kind of behaviour we discourage in children, why would we encourage it in adults?

Dannyriver

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Nah rather whinge about him online pal.:cool:

Evidently.

Dannyriver

One eyed Jack wrote: »

80,000 subscribers on iTunes is nothing, seriously.





He's talking about what he knows, no question there, but clearly he doesn't know a whole lot about much else, let alone where he pretends he's from, or wants people to think that's where he's from. If he were talking about where he's from, then he wouldn't be adopting a persona from the other side of the city.





If you'd said an extreme unemployment problem in some areas of the city among young men under 30, I'd have said fair enough, but an extreme suicide problem among young men under 30 across the city itself is an exaggeration.





No he isn't.





I've been working with them and talking with them every day mate for the last 40 years, not just in Limerick but in the town where I grew up which became a dead town with no employment prospects and not a snowballs chance in hell of ever owning a house when Dubs moved down and bought up all the shoebox housing pricing the people who grew up in the town out of the market.

I'm not surprised you don't know where I'm coming from, but the young men who struggle to get into education, stay in education, get employment and stay in employment, certainly know where I'm coming from. It's an awful shìtty feeling for a lot of young men that they imagine their prospects are so poor and of course that's going to affect their outlook on life and their perception of their value to society and their place in society. Feminism is going to do fcukall for those young men.





What's with this "particularly on the internet" and "internet warriors" stuff from earlier in the thread, as though because we are somewhat anonymous, our opinions shouldn't be taken seriously? Yet isn't that the very expectation you're asking of people when they're presented with a guy who is somewhat anonymous by virtue of the plastic bag on his head? If you're suggesting that the opinions of anonymous randomers shouldn't be taken seriously, then why would you expect a different standard to apply to some anonymous randomer with a plastic bag on his head?

That's the kind of behaviour we discourage in children, why would we encourage it in adults?

Its hard to know from this are you angry at his mention of the word 'feminism' 'the plastic bag on his head' or that an artist should have the temerity to develop a persona, because one thing is obvious you ve certainly decided he is beyond listening to and that anything he says is without worth. Its also obvious that you have never been able to look at his work objectively without said anger feeding your bias. All the points you made about unemployment/Dubs and or vulture funds buying up properties/neo liberalist politics/inequality and its effects on mental health and suicide/he has addressed at some stage or another. And for you to say ' He's full of shìt, which is why he's popular amongst other people who are themselves, also full of shìt.' displays an arrogance, sweeping assumption and lack of critical thinking that is truly remarkable. But I do agree with one point you made, you are entitled to your opinion and because you are anonymous here doesn t make it less valid in any way. In fact its obvious from the points you make that you feel very strongly indeed about it.

Ulysses Gaze

Dannyriver wrote: »

So you are suggesting that the Kevin Barry and Danny Boyle didn t read the book or give these quotes and the publishers just made them up and stuck them on the cover Yeah?

I'm suggesting nothing of the type.

The article is from an well known author who has experience of what happens in terms of quotes being placed on the front covers and that includes publishers making them up.

Dannyriver wrote:

. Its hard to know from this are you angry at his mention of the word 'feminism' 'the plastic bag on his head' or that an artist should have the temerity to develop a persona, because one thing is obvious you ve certainly decided he is beyond listening to and that anything he says is without worth. Its also obvious that you have never been able to look at his work objectively without said anger feeding your bias. All the points you made about unemployment/Dubs and or vulture funds buying up properties/neo liberalist politics/inequality and its effects on mental health and suicide/he has addressed at some stage or another. And for you to say ' He's full of sh which is why he's popular amongst other people who are themselves, also full of sh' displays an arrogance, sweeping assumption and lack of critical thinking that is truly remarkable. But I do agree with one point you made, you are entitled to your opinion and because you are anonymous here doesn t make it less valid in any way. In fact its obvious from the points you make that you feel very strongly indeed about it.

Yes. But not on the Late Late Show when he stated that Young Men needed to embrace Feminism. That was it. He probably needed to be clear that all of that bolded text was added into such a statement as well .

That is the problem with making such glib and dangerous statements on a TV show. Dangerous in the sense that the most visible strands of feminism that exist in the digital domain, where a large number of young people aged 18-30 live a lot of the time now, is the most toxic form of third/fourth wave feminism.

Blindboy is an articulate fellow in his podcasts, but he has a much longer time and larger space to develop these ideas in that format.

Insect Overlord

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No he isn't. He's full of shìt, which is why he's popular amongst other people who are themselves, also full of shìt.

Is there really any need for a comment like that?

david75

Wow. Sounds like an irrational hatred thing going on. If a guy in the media is making your blood boil that much perhaps he’s touching a few raw nerves and speaking some truths you don’t want to admit to yourself?

Ps what’s wrong with embracing feminism? This especially seems to be rattling your cage.

Ulysses Gaze

david75 wrote: »

Wow. Sounds like an irrational hatred thing going on. If a guy in the media is making your blood boil that much perhaps he’s touching a few raw nerves and speaking some truths you don’t want to admit to yourself?

Ps what’s wrong with embracing feminism? This especially seems to be rattling your cage.

I can only speak from my perspective, but I think that there is nothing wrong with embracing traditional feminism.

The newer third/fourth wave strands, are as toxic as the worst of the Incel/MGTOW/Red Pill type of male equivalent.

One eyed Jack

Dannyriver wrote: »

Its hard to know from this are you angry at his mention of the word 'feminism' 'the plastic bag on his head' or that an artist should have the temerity to develop a persona, because one thing is obvious you ve certainly decided he is beyond listening to and that anything he says is without worth.

Danny you're reading too much into it if you think I'm angry. I'm pissed off at the idea that this guy has an opportunity that the people he purports to represent will only ever dream of, and what does he do? He squanders it by telling the people he's talking to exactly what they want to hear. He undoubtedly has the intelligence, the intellect and most importantly the education to know that he is playing the role of the jester in the Court of Public Opinion. That's exactly why the likes of Tubridy love to have him on their shows and love to have him talk at conferences on mental health and so on, because he presents a juxtaposition of a member of the underclass who is actually well educated! This is where most of his comedy is derived from - presenting a stereotype of the underclass, but with the unexpected education which one wouldn't normally associate with them.

It's how he has chosen to make his living and fair play to him, and for a time I thought he was worth listening to, but it's only because I have listened to him, and I have read his book, and I have listened to his talks, that I've decided his USP is the plastic bag on his head. That's the only thing that makes him unique from the many, many artists and social commentators who have gone before him. It's because he's not saying anything that hasn't been said before is the reason I don't think he's worth entertaining.

I know he's your mate and all and you grew up with the guy and I have no doubt he'd be alright to go for a few pints with, but plastic bag or no plastic bag, when he'd come out with the shìte he does, rather than spend an evening entertaining him, I'd simply say we're having a few drinks mate, time and a place and all that.

Its also obvious that you have never been able to look at his work objectively without said anger feeding your bias. All the points you made about unemployment/Dubs and or vulture funds buying up properties/neo liberalist politics/inequality and its effects on mental health and suicide/he has addressed at some stage or another. And for you to say ' He's full of shìt, which is why he's popular amongst other people who are themselves, also full of shìt.' displays an arrogance, sweeping assumption and lack of critical thinking that is truly remarkable. But I do agree with one point you made, you are entitled to your opinion and because you are anonymous here doesn t make it less valid in any way. In fact its obvious from the points you make that you feel very strongly indeed about it.

It's neither arrogance nor a lack of critical thinking to suggest that if someone is dropping bullshìt cliches as though they are new ideas, then it's everyone's responsibility to examine the source of those ideas. If those ideas are coming from someone who is presenting a fake representation of themselves, then you can expect people not just to be skeptical, but also cynical of their motives, as that is the basis of objectivity and critical thinking. I could have levelled the same accusation at you that because you're his mate it clouds your objectivity and critical thinking, but I don't, simply because I don't know you at all as a person, so I don't know whether you're friends with him because you agree with him, or whether you agree with him because you're friends.

There are certain circumstances where an ad hominem is valid, and in circumstances where a persons arguments are based upon how they present themselves, then it is essential that in order to evaluate their arguments, we must evaluate the source. Otherwise Rachel Dolezal would still be taking the piss out of people by misrepresenting herself as someone she isn't by hiding behind a mask which she presented to the public, or in Blindboy's case at least, a plastic bag. It may shield him from public recognition, but it isn't a shield from public criticism when he puts his opinions out there to be critically evaluated.

david75

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At the behest of a few users on the thread I did work through his podcasts. I even broke one down on an earlier post and found nothing at all wrong with it.

Listened to the rest over the last few days too and again it was all not only ok, but all stuff I ENTIRELY agree with and often say myself. I was genuinely trying to find out what it is people here have an issue with about him. He comes across as someone who takes stuff seriously without taking himself too seriously. And I was struggling to find anything I disagree with him on at all. At most I found a few things I think I could enter into dialog with him on and add a good bit of depth and nuance to his position, but without really altering it much.

The most recent podcast however is well outside my comfort / knowledge zone. Because he is talking about things I admit having zero knowledge about, I genuinely do not know how to parse or judge any of it. It all sounds conspiracy theory stuff, from some things going on in Irish History, to how cannabis is being grown by Chinese Triad gangs in Ireland inside all the Chinese Take aways as part of a Chinese take away protection racket. And so on and more.

It is so far outside stuff I involve myself with and have educated myself on, that I can not even judge the podcast and point to which bits are factual (if any) and which is just total conspiracy theory nonsense (if any). Someone more informed on Irish history and/or the current situation of cannabis production in Ireland will have to listen to this recent podcast and parse it for me if they have a moment.

There are grow houses all over not just Dublin but the entire country. Just in regular ordinary houses rented out. Each room is packed with all the equipment and lights and plants. Usually one Chinese guy living on the landing working and living there full time taking care of everything. Irish gangs usually running this, never heard about any triad involvement though.
Thought this was common knowledge.

arayess

david75 wrote: »

Ps what’s wrong with embracing feminism? This especially seems to be rattling your cage.

Feminism is no longer about equality ( at least the feminism that makes the media). It's about control and changing fundamentally what masculinity is.
Not for equality.

It advocates limiting speech and defining anything what "they" don't like as hateful disregarding that the vast majority of women do not want this brand of feminism.

I believe in equality but I reject modern feminism completely.

to quote the man on the internet : feminism is cancer.

The only nerve it touches with me is the fear that this movement will influence the laws of this country and deny me freedoms.

Take for example : Macrons latest diktat that gender based insults are a crime.
so no more bitches, whores , ****....thought police at it's finest.
or a woman calling a man a wanker...although i suspect it'll be men in court rather than women on that one.

imagine a man being fined for calling his cheating partner a whore....imagine that...that's the new world.

of course , it's not just feminism alone. There is a whole movement of gombeens trying to alter how we think and operate.
blending us into a gender-less homogenised no culture of a society.

Dannyriver

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

I'm suggesting nothing of the type.

The article is from an well known author who has experience of what happens in terms of quotes being placed on the front covers and that includes publishers making them up.



Yes. But not on the Late Late Show when he stated that Young Men needed to embrace Feminism. That was it. He probably needed to be clear that all of that bolded text was added into such a statement as well .

That is the problem with making such glib and dangerous statements on a TV show. Dangerous in the sense that the most visible strands of feminism that exist in the digital domain, where a large number of young people aged 18-30 live a lot of the time now, is the most toxic form of third/fourth wave feminism.

Blindboy is an articulate fellow in his podcasts, but he has a much longer time and larger space to develop these ideas in that format.

Well I think its safe to say that Gill and McMillan, who are essentially a small Irish book publisher famed for publishing school books, are not in the financial/legal position to risk misquoting international names like Danny Boyle and Russel Brand in such an obvious way. So we are probably wise to debunk that particular conspiracy theory straight away. As for Kevin Barry he s doing a joint reading and question and answer session with Blindboy in Dolan's in Febuary so we can take his endorsement as truth.

I agree regarding not having enough time to elaborate in a short interview but he cant be responsible for people projecting the toxic feminism that Paul Joseph Watson highlights on to the basic equality message that the rest of the interview suggested. To take one interview and an interpretation of the word 'feminism' as his entire outlook on mental health without listening to the rest of the work/pronouncements is beyond stupid.

One eyed Jack

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Is there really any need for a comment like that?

No, you're right IO, I certainly could have phrased that better, but it wasn't directed at anyone here, it was directed at the people who are now Blindboy's new audience - wealthy socialites who pretend to care about social inequality in Ireland.

Dannyriver

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Danny you're reading too much into it if you think I'm angry. I'm pissed off at the idea that this guy has an opportunity that the people he purports to represent will only ever dream of, and what does he do? He squanders it by telling the people he's talking to exactly what they want to hear. He undoubtedly has the intelligence, the intellect and most importantly the education to know that he is playing the role of the jester in the Court of Public Opinion. That's exactly why the likes of Tubridy love to have him on their shows and love to have him talk at conferences on mental health and so on, because he presents a juxtaposition of a member of the underclass who is actually well educated! This is where most of his comedy is derived from - presenting a stereotype of the underclass, but with the unexpected education which one wouldn't normally associate with them.

It's how he has chosen to make his living and fair play to him, and for a time I thought he was worth listening to, but it's only because I have listened to him, and I have read his book, and I have listened to his talks, that I've decided his USP is the plastic bag on his head. That's the only thing that makes him unique from the many, many artists and social commentators who have gone before him. It's because he's not saying anything that hasn't been said before is the reason I don't think he's worth entertaining.

I know he's your mate and all and you grew up with the guy and I have no doubt he'd be alright to go for a few pints with, but plastic bag or no plastic bag, when he'd come out with the shìte he does, rather than spend an evening entertaining him, I'd simply say we're having a few drinks mate, time and a place and all that.





It's neither arrogance nor a lack of critical thinking to suggest that if someone is dropping bullshìt cliches as though they are new ideas, then it's everyone's responsibility to examine the source of those ideas. If those ideas are coming from someone who is presenting a fake representation of themselves, then you can expect people not just to be skeptical, but also cynical of their motives, as that is the basis of objectivity and critical thinking. I could have levelled the same accusation at you that because you're his mate it clouds your objectivity and critical thinking, but I don't, simply because I don't know you at all as a person, so I don't know whether you're friends with him because you agree with him, or whether you agree with him because you're friends.

There are certain circumstances where an ad hominem is valid, and in circumstances where a persons arguments are based upon how they present themselves, then it is essential that in order to evaluate their arguments, we must evaluate the source. Otherwise Rachel Dolezal would still be taking the piss out of people by misrepresenting herself as someone she isn't by hiding behind a mask which she presented to the public, or in Blindboy's case at least, a plastic bag. It may shield him from public recognition, but it isn't a shield from public criticism when he puts his opinions out there to be critically evaluated.

You can level away and of course you are entitled to assume my motives that s the limitations of the written word. I dont know you either and clearly you disagree with him and what he s about [mind you the one advantage I do have is I actually do know him but you re not to know whether Im a doe eyed fan boy so that s fair enough] but I do know that when people speak in absolutes such as he s full of **** and those that follow him are the same, tend to be coming from an irrational place of anger. See As you correctly pointed out about his bag not shielding him from public criticism your one eyed jack avator and my Danny River does not shield us in the same way And on here we are judged on the tone and use of our language for others to decide whether we are angry and in my book yours suggests anger and resentment.

Also can you direct me to where he stated that any of what he says about things is a new idea, I ve never heard him suggest that ever.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's not entirely true. Marie Stopes is a feminist icon because she advocated for free contraceptives for working class people. Though it did appear that after her death she was really doing so because she believed in eugenics and wanted to reduce the family size of the "lower classes".

She's very different to other great feminists like Emily Pankhurst, who worked tirelessly to get the vote for women....until WWI broke out when she stopped to shame men who didn't voluntarily enlist into fighting and dying in the trenches as part of the white feather campaign.

Don't forget the more recent feminist icon (and stepmother of actor Christian Bale), Gloria Steinem.

She happily admits that she was a shill for the CIA and was on their payroll, and blatantly admits that on video here:

Pro tip here, ladies and Gentlemen: If the CIA is offering you money to spout a certain viewpoint, they're not doing it to help YOU.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/23/a-friend-of-the-devil

One eyed Jack

Dannyriver wrote: »

You can level away and of course you are entitled to assume my motives that s the limitations of the written word. I dont know you either and clearly you disagree with him and what he s about [mind you the one advantage I do have is I actually do know him but you re not to know whether Im a doe eyed fan boy so that s fair enough] but I do know that when people speak in absolutes such as he s full of **** and those that follow him are the same, tend to be coming from an irrational place of anger. See As you correctly pointed out about his bag not shielding him from public criticism your one eyed jack avator and my Danny River does not shield us in the same way And on here we are judged on the tone and use of our language for others to decide whether we are angry and in my book yours suggests anger and resentment.

Danny as I said to IO, I could have phrased that better, but it's not coming from a place of anger at all, more frustration. I freely admit that his whole presentation and his message pisses me off, because it does nothing whatsoever to address the issues he has not only acknowledged, but has happily made a living off the negative stereotype which has long been held about young men living in certain areas of the city. In order for me to be angry about that, I'd have to take him seriously, which I don't, because I know better.

Like I said, I have no doubt he's sound and all the rest of it in private, but I can only judge him on what he presents as his public persona, and I have made no criticism of him as a private citizen, as I simply don't know him in that regard.

Also can you direct me to where he stated that any of what he says about things is a new idea, I ve never heard him suggest that ever.

No I can't direct you to where he stated that any of what he says about things is a new idea. My point is that he presents the idea that young men experiencing difficulties with their mental health need feminism, as though that is the new idea that men in those circumstances weren't aware of before. Presenting those men with an ideology that is entirely centred around the welfare of women, is missing the whole understanding of the experiences of those men as men entirely. He's speaking from a place of privilege as opposed to demonstrating any genuine understanding of the issues experienced by the men he purports to represent, and that's why to him, feminism would appear to be the most obvious ideology through which to parse those men's experiences that aren't his. That's why I could never take him seriously, it was never just the plastic bag. It was that his public persona has no authenticity, and when something has no authenticity, it's going to inherently have a credibility problem.

david75

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Danny as I said to IO, I could have phrased that better, but it's not coming from a place of anger at all, more frustration. I freely admit that his whole presentation and his message pisses me off, because it does nothing whatsoever to address the issues he has not only acknowledged, but has happily made a living off the negative stereotype which has long been held about certain areas of the city. In order for me to be angry about that, I'd have to take him seriously, which I don't, because I know better.

Like I said, I have no doubt he's sound and all the rest of it in private, but I can only judge him on what he presents as his public persona, and I have made no criticism of him as a private citizen, as I simply don't know him in that regard.





No I can't direct you to where he stated that any of what he says about things is a new idea. My point is that he presents the idea that young men experiencing difficulties with their mental health need feminism, as though that is the new idea that men in those circumstances weren't aware of before. Presenting those men with an ideology that is entirely centred around the welfare of women, is missing the whole understanding of the experiences of those men as men entirely. He's speaking from a place of privilege as opposed to demonstrating any genuine understanding of the issues experienced by the men he purports to represent, and that's why to him, feminism would appear to be the most obvious ideology through which to parse those men's experiences that aren't his.

Gotta correct you there. He’s from limerick. He has mental health issues and is very open about it. In fact it pretty much is the platform he’s on. To say he has no understanding of the issues is just flat out incorrect. I think you have a bias or worse an axe to grind with the guy. It’s definitely affecting your ability to be subjective about it.

One eyed Jack

david75 wrote: »

Gotta correct you there. He’s from limerick. He has mental health issues and is very open about it. In fact it pretty much is the platform he’s on. To say he has no understanding of the issues is just flat out incorrect. I think you have a bias or worse an axe to grind with the guy. It’s definitely affecting your ability to be subjective about it.

Firstly - you're not correcting me on anything I haven't pointed out already - that he's not from the part of the city his public persona is based on.

Secondly, that means his processing of his experiences with his mental health are going to be very different from someone from the part of the city his public persona is based upon. He would probably tell you himself that how we process our thoughts is a combination both of our experiences and our perceptions.

Thirdly, because it's Blindboy is the subject of this thread, of course anyone with a negative opinion of his public persona is going to look like they have an axe to grind. I don't particularly care that much about Blindboy because neither he, nor his opinions, count for much among the company I keep. He's about as relevant as Niall Breslin in that regard.

And lastly - of course my judgement is going to look impaired from your perspective because it would be quite unusual that we would have a similar perspective if our experiences and perceptions weren't similar.

Dannyriver

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Danny as I said to IO, I could have phrased that better, but it's not coming from a place of anger at all, more frustration. I freely admit that his whole presentation and his message pisses me off, because it does nothing whatsoever to address the issues he has not only acknowledged, but has happily made a living off the negative stereotype which has long been held about young men living in certain areas of the city. In order for me to be angry about that, I'd have to take him seriously, which I don't, because I know better.

Like I said, I have no doubt he's sound and all the rest of it in private, but I can only judge him on what he presents as his public persona, and I have made no criticism of him as a private citizen, as I simply don't know him in that regard.



No I can't direct you to where he stated that any of what he says about things is a new idea. My point is that he presents the idea that young men experiencing difficulties with their mental health need feminism, as though that is the new idea that men in those circumstances weren't aware of before. Presenting those men with an ideology that is entirely centred around the welfare of women, is missing the whole understanding of the experiences of those men as men entirely. He's speaking from a place of privilege as opposed to demonstrating any genuine understanding of the issues experienced by the men he purports to represent, and that's why to him, feminism would appear to be the most obvious ideology through which to parse those men's experiences that aren't his. That's why I could never take him seriously, it was never just the plastic bag. It was that his public persona has no authenticity, and when something has no authenticity, it's going to inherently have a credibility problem.

Which men is he purporting to represent? I dont understand where you are coming from there. He is speaking of all men who feel pressure to live up to the male stereotype of being the provider, regardless of background surely, and is merely stating that in the modern world this isn t good for mental health and an acceptance of equality between the sexes would be a more functional approach to take. Im repeating myself here but he doesn t present anything 'as though it is a new idea' that s just your interpretation, that view has been espoused by mental health professionals for many years. As so many have explained on here [albeit to your deaf ears] many young men feel under pressure to provide and be 'bread winners' due to gender stereotypes. Nothing new here nor have I ever seen him espouse that its a new way of looking at things. The fact that he uses a character as part of his act is one that has been used since theatre began but if you cant get beyond that that s fair enough I have no trouble with it and nor do I feel 'he has ever made a living out of a negative stereotype' and in fairness if that s all he had in his locker Im pretty sure he wouldnt be still at it today.Talent and ability at a variety of artistic disciplines is closer to the truth, dont forget he and the Bandits have been independent artists without record company backing making their art and music out of their living rooms since the beginning and still do so today. IMO A bit of credit where it is due regardless of subjective opinion of their artistic merit would be a far more feasible response amidst all the other noise.

One eyed Jack

Dannyriver wrote: »

Which men is he purporting to represent? I dont understand where you are coming from there. He is speaking of all men who feel pressure to live up to the male stereotype of being the provider regardless of background surely and is merely stating that in the modern world this isn t good for mental health and an acceptance of equality between the sexes would be a more functional approach to take. Im repeating myself here but he doesn t present anything 'as though it is a new idea' that s just your interpretation, that view has been espoused by mental health professionals and indeed the WHO. As so many have explained on here [to your deaf ears] many young men feel under pressure to provide and be 'bread winners' due to gender stereotypes. Nothing new here nor have I ever seen him espouse that its a new way of looking at things.

Danny when you start to feign ignorance of the whole basis of his public persona, I really think we're done here as I simply won't waste either my time or your time entertaining that level of disingenuous.