International Men's Day 19th November

One eyed Jack

HorrorScope wrote: »

Yeah go **** yourself you inconsiderate prick (and no I don’t care if I get banned for this). Women’s day might be a joyful celebration of females and their achievements, meanwhile men’s day is ridiculed and laughed at like in this thread. I’ve lost my 3 of my friends to suicide and yet people like you treat it as a ****ing joke? Sickening.

Yeah, the poster you quoted was ridiculing IMD, not suicide.

HorrorScope

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah, the poster you quoted was ridiculing IMD, not suicide.

Same thing in my eyes, brush aside IMD without realising what it’s trying to highlight.

HorrorScope

Joey Adams wrote: »

I'm sorry your friends committed suicide but raging at me won't bring them back. I'm all for talking about suicide and mental health but it seems weird to me that Women's day is all about strength and positivity, and Men's day is all about weakness and negativity.

Men aren’t allowed to be strong and positive anymore, that’s “toxic masulcinity” now apparently. I’m sorry for having a go at you man but that juxtapose **** pisses me off like nothing else. We can all celebrate women’s day and the positive female role models in our lives but men’s day which takes a more spotlight approach to serious issues is ****ing laughed at and ridiculed??? Some of the posters here should be ****ing ashamed of themselves.

HorrorScope

Joey Adams wrote: »

Yeah I get you. Suicide is a scourge. I wonder how many men do it because they lost everything during the divorce?

It’s not even divorces man. Friend 1 killed himself because of some female in a nightclub calling him pizza face (he struggled with acne his whole life and killed himself same night after a feed of drink). Friend 2 lost his 2 kids in a divorce because the mother made accusations that he was a pedo, hung himself the day after custody hearing. And friend 3 was simply a gentle soul who got overwhelmed by workload, i met him for pints a few times in the past few months. Always upbeat, and always wearing a mask which made it hard to tell if he was ok or sad. We got word on a Monday morning in the office that he had taken an overdose the night before (needless to say that was the end of the work day then and there).

IMD is trying to shine a spotlight on this bull**** and it gets laughed at? We’ve lost too many friends along the way to make this a laughing matter - this is not a celebration of the patriarchy or white privilege or any other bull**** label used to shut down the opinions of men. This is calling out the fact that we as men, have an issue talking about this stuff - talking about the black dog or the boogeyman who follows us around day to day.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Or she was shocked somebody stood up to her and got freaked out :P

Yeah, she's a mate hence why were out for pints together. She genuinely took back her little joke about every day being men's day. She cares about mental health, suicide and education so all she needed was the information. Simple as that in her case.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah, she's a mate hence why were out for pints together. She genuinely took back her little joke about every day being men's day. She cares about mental health, suicide and education so all she needed was the information. Simple as that in her case.

I think most people are reasoned enough to appreciate the issues men face when presented with facts...the problem arises when they have abandoned reason, those who have abandoned reason make an awful lot of noise tho!

One eyed Jack

HorrorScope wrote: »

Same thing in my eyes, brush aside IMD without realising what it’s trying to highlight.

They’re not the same thing though, and IMD IMO doesn’t do anything to highlight anything only a couple of high horsey types who imagine that people aren’t aware of suicide (to take suicide as one example). A good example of a high horsey type is Blindboy who suggests that young men need to adopt feminism.

That’s entirely about promoting feminism, it does nothing to address the issues he uses to promote feminism. The poster makes a good point about the motivation behind these movements promoting women’s days and men’s days. People talk about these issues all year round, they’re aware of them and they’re aware that the information is out there and the services available to them in their communities.

Even earlier in the thread El_D related an anecdote from their own lives where men corrected a woman on her assumptions over a few drinks. They didn’t have to wait until IMD to make her aware of the issues from their perspective. IMD is all about promoting a particular point of view and as El_D suggests - if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. It has nothing to do with men’s welfare because they have no interest in hearing from men who don’t share their ideological beliefs, they only want to hear from people who are willing to validate their ideological beliefs which are rooted in identity politics, which is where the ideas of women’s day came from and later the token men’s day as more of an afterthought when they realised the ineffectiveness of women’s day on it’s own :rolleyes:

suicide_circus

Joey Adams wrote: »

So you agree without men you couldn't live your soft comfortable western lifestyle but you don't want to celebrate men in case women feel left out?

what? my comfortable western lifestyle was achieved through the blood sweat and tears of generations of men and women that went before me. I celebrate achievements based on their merit, not the gender of those who achieved them.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

I think most people are reasoned enough to appreciate the issues men face when presented with facts...the problem arises when they have abandoned reason, those who have abandoned reason make an awful lot of noise tho!

I'd agree most people react to facts when given the info. That's why I see it as so important to take full advantage of IMD, get as much good info out there and gain allies in addressing men's issues.

suicide_circus

Joey Adams wrote: »

Men did heavy lifting though (literally and figuratively) so why can't you honour the men who gave you what you have?

i honour them by not being so petty and needy as to need a special day. man up and get back to work.

suicide_circus

Joey Adams wrote: »

How many women die on construction sites, oil rigs, coal mines each year?

how many men died in labour birthing our forefathers? this gender crap is boring.

international mens day and womens day are an embarrassment.

TheValeyard

I want to know where do I queue for my free drink?
I take it all those places like 'Nolita' which gave free drinks away for Womens day are doing the same right? Equality and that Jamaican rum flavoured cocktails.

suicide_circus

Joey Adams wrote: »

We can honour both men and women. Are you a woman? Does it make you insecure that men built civilisation?

i'm all man, baby

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Even earlier in the thread El_D related an anecdote from their own lives where men corrected a woman on her assumptions over a few drinks. They didn’t have to wait until IMD to make her aware of the issues from their perspective. IMD is all about promoting a particular point of view and as El_D suggests - if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

I already said it didn't have to happen on IMD, but it did happen on IMD. The chat was prompted because it was IMD. Maybe you go around all year round talking about suicide stats, but I find it doesn't come up very often in normal conversation. IMD is a great opportunity to naturally talk about these things as they'll be in the media anyway, wouldn't you agree?

Secondly, and I've clarified this a few times too, if you oppose the solution, you're part of the problem. Doing nothing would be neutral.

Seamai

TheValeyard wrote: »

I want to know where do I queue for my free drink?
I take it all those places like 'Nolita' which gave free drinks away for Womens day are doing the same right? Equality and that Jamaican rum flavoured cocktails.

Good luck with that one but on the plus side you'll be able to sit with your legs as far apart as you want on the day and you won't have to take crap from anyone.

Reviews and Books Galore

suicide_circus wrote: »

i'm all man, baby

Well, you are a man baby

suicide_circus

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Well, you are a man baby

ZING!!

TheValeyard

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Well, you are a man baby

suicide_circus wrote: »

ZING!!

Ye flirting?

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I already said it didn't have to happen on IMD, but it did happen on IMD. The chat was prompted because it was IMD. Maybe you go around all year round talking about suicide stats, but I find it doesn't come up very often in normal conversation. IMD is a great opportunity to naturally talk about these things as they'll be in the media anyway, wouldn't you agree?

No I wouldn’t agree, obviously. I don’t go around all year talking about the suicide stats but I deal with suicide regularly, and whether it’s a man or a woman the point for me has never been that they’re suicidal, but what’s actually causing a person to feel suicidal. Talking about the stats does nothing to address the underlying causes, and I could cite you the stats all day off the top of my head, and it still wouldn’t make one iota of a difference in preventing people who choose to take their own lives from doing so, because their reasons for doing so are as individual as they are.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Secondly, and I've clarified this a few times too, if you oppose the solution, you're part of the problem. Doing nothing would be neutral.

I know you’ve clarified it a few times, and I’m still opposed to what you’re putting forward as a solution. That doesn’t make me part of the problem in addressing the issue of suicide or any number of other social issues as they relate either to men or to women. Effectively all you’re doing is advocating for your particular ideology, as opposed to being interested in either men’s or women’s welfare. If the problem you’re referring to is that I am opposed to your promotion of your own ideology, then you’re correct on that much at least. If the problem you’re referring to is suicide prevention, then you’re talking nonsense, because neither I nor anyone else in society, regardless of their gender, is responsible for someone else who chooses to take their own life.

It’s that statement which you weren’t very clear on - what the problem is you’re talking about, that you’re accusing me of being a part of? How accusing me of perpetuating suicide is of any benefit to me, is the bit I’d like you to clarify. Because to me it sounds like you’re not the least bit interested in suicide prevention, and more interested in promoting yourself as a morally superior individual to everyone else, and anyone who isn’t with you is agin’ you.

Reviews and Books Galore

suicide_circus wrote: »

ZING!!

I was a little bit proud

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I wouldn’t agree, obviously. I don’t go around all year talking about the suicide stats but I deal with suicide regularly, and whether it’s a man or a woman the point for me has never been that they’re suicidal, but what’s actually causing a person to feel suicidal. Talking about the stats does nothing to address the underlying causes, and I could cite you the stats all day off the top of my head, and it still wouldn’t make one iota of a difference in preventing people who choose to take their own lives from doing so, because their reasons for doing so are as individual as they are.

You don't agree that IMD is a great opportunity to naturally talk about these things as they'll be in the media anyway? That's an odd thing to think because it's demonstrably wrong.

The whole point of spreading info like stats is to shape attitudes and get more people onside with regards to funding solutions and providing services to help deal with the problems. Both of those things cost money so they need support from the general public to give cover to politicians to spend public money on those things. Likewise they need support from the public to set up private charities to help deal with the problems.

Why you'd stand in opposition to those things is something I don't understand. And it absolutely makes you a part of the problem whether you like to think of yourself as a part of the problem or not. It might be easy to think of other groups like the dreaded feminists as the problem, but anyone who opposes progress is a part of the problem. It's pretty obvious really.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You don't agree that these topics are in the media on IMD? That's an odd thing to think because it's demonstrably wrong.

Go back and read your own post as to what I disagreed with, instead of being so purposely obtuse -

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

IMD is a great opportunity to naturally talk about these things as they'll be in the media anyway, wouldn't you agree?

I don’t agree that IMD is a great opportunity to natural talk about these things.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The whole point if spreading info like stats is to get more people onside with regards to funding solutions and providing services to help deal with the problems. Both of those things cost money so they need support from the general public to give cover to politicians to spend public money on those things. Likewise they need support from the public to set up private charities to help deal with the problems.

Why you'd stand in opposition to those things is something I don't understand. And it absolutely makes you a part of the problem whether you like to think of yourself as a part of the problem or not. It might be easy to think of other groups like the dreaded feminists as the problem, but anyone who opposes progress is a part of the problem. It's pretty obvious really.

You don’t understand why I’d be opposed to people using social issues as a means to promote their own ideology and get funding and lobbying from the general public to promote their ideology?

Perhaps that’s the underlying cause of our differences of opinion - I don’t agree with the idea of exploiting people to promote an ideology, you appear to be arguing that the end justifies the means. I don’t think it does, as that to me is not progress, it’s simply exploitation and taking advantage of people’s desperation.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Go back and read your own post as to what I disagreed with, instead of being so purposely obtuse -





I don’t agree that IMD is a great opportunity to natural talk about these things.





You don’t understand why I’d be opposed to people using social issues as a means to promote their own ideology and get funding and lobbying from the general public to promote their ideology?

Perhaps that’s the underlying cause of our differences of opinion - I don’t agree with the idea of exploiting people to promote an ideology, you appear to be arguing that the end justifies the means. I don’t think it does, as that to me is not progress, it’s simply exploitation and taking advantage of people’s desperation.

That wS the question I asked and you said you obviously didn't agree. I can only take you at your word. What ideology are we talking about? The ideology of identifying issues that affect men and finding solutions to those issues? (I wouldn't have thought of calling it an ideology but it's the term you seem to prefer). That's a grand 'ideology' as far as I'm concerned. If someone does good work towards that objective, then good on them. And shame on those who stand in opposition to the objective (ideology, in your terms).

Ironicname

HorrorScope wrote:

Yeah go **** yourself you inconsiderate prick (and no I don’t care if I get banned for this). Women’s day might be a joyful celebration of females and their achievements, meanwhile men’s day is ridiculed and laughed at like in this thread. I’ve lost my 3 of my friends to suicide and yet people like you treat it as a ****ing joke? A day that highlights the issue men face is some topic for comedy?? Sickening.

Actually, you proved the posters point there.

He was pointing out that IMD was all about suicide and depression whereas IWD was about celebrating achievement and empowerment.

He wasn't joking about it.

HorrorScope wrote:

Same thing in my eyes, brush aside IMD without realising what it’s trying to highlight.

Excuse me? Brushing aside IMD is not making light of suicide.

Muir

https://internationalmensday.com/

"On November 19 International Men’s Day celebrates worldwide the positive value men bring to the world, their families and communities. We highlight positive role models and raise awareness of men’s well-being."

I don't know why people think it's only about mental health. There have been suggestions in this thread that it's about negativity and weakness. The fact that people are still implying that mental illness is a weakness just shows that it still needs to be spoken about. You could have a colleague, a friend, a family member - someone who wants to open up about how they're feeling - imagine that being the attitude they're met with.

There's nothing to stop anyone here promoting whatever issues, or positive role models or whatever they want on IMD or indeed any other day of the year. And if you don't agree with the day, for whatever reason, you can ignore it. But there's no need to complain whenever someone brings it up. There are still massive problems with men worrying how they'll be seen by other men - there is no need to compound that problem.

I'm not in any way trying to suggest that there aren't valid points raised in the thread, and valid reasons to disagree with IMD, or things that could be changed or done better. But that doesn't happen by magic - if you don't like something then you either need to work to change it or deal with it.

I will also add that statistics are important. No, they don't address the issues of the individual - but they do go a long way in determining funding. They can also identify things like professions with higher rates of suicide for example, so the underlying reasons for that can be identified. There are a lot more employers in areas like construction, where there are high rates of suicide among men, starting to educate themselves and become more proactive. Not nearly enough is being done, but knowing where the problems are can go some way towards addressing them.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That wS the question I asked and you said you obviously didn't agree. I can only take you at your word.

You didn’t take me at my word though. You tried to misrepresent what I was said as though I was saying the media coverage was a bad idea when your question was concerned with using IMD as an opportunity to talk about men’s issues.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What ideology are we talking about? The ideology of identifying issues that affect men and finding solutions to those issues? (I wouldn't have thought of calling it an ideology but it's the term you seem to prefer). That's a grand 'ideology' as far as I'm concerned. If someone does good work towards that objective, then good on them. And shame on those who stand in opposition to the objective (ideology, in your terms).

We’re talking about the ideology of self-promotion in which people attach themselves to social issues and want to promote what they see as the solutions to those issues - they require funding from the general public in order to address those issues though. So the objective is more about promoting an ideology and gaining funding to promote that ideology. It’s simply self-serving and using social issues to promote themselves and gain support for their cause. Of course you’re going to attempt to call people shameful when your true motivations are pointed out, and it might actually work if I thought I had done anything to be ashamed of.

Ideologues who claim to support men and promote men’s issues while looking for public funding and support for their ideas, and all the while attempting to shame anyone who disagrees with them into submission? That doesn’t sound familiar at all at all :rolleyes:

Put it this way - if people thought your ideas were any good in the first place, you wouldn’t feel a need to try and shame anyone who disagrees with your ideas into submission.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You didn’t take me at my word though. You tried to misrepresent what I was said as though I was saying the media coverage was a bad idea when your question was concerned with using IMD as an opportunity to talk about men’s issues.





We’re talking about the ideology of self-promotion in which people attach themselves to social issues and want to promote what they see as the solutions to those issues - they require funding from the general public in order to address those issues though. So the objective is more about promoting an ideology and gaining funding to promote that ideology. It’s simply self-serving and using social issues to promote themselves and gain support for their cause. Of course you’re going to attempt to call people shameful when your true motivations are pointed out, and it might actually work if I thought I had done anything to be ashamed of.

Ideologues who claim to support men and promote men’s issues while looking for public funding and support for their ideas, and all the while attempting to shame anyone who disagrees with them into submission? That doesn’t sound familiar at all at all :rolleyes:

Put it this way - if people thought your ideas were any good in the first place, you wouldn’t feel a need to try and shame anyone who disagrees with your ideas into submission.

Lol. So if you don't think media attention for men's issues is a good idea, how do yo think they should be addressed and solved?

I really don't get your objection to using the media to promote men's issuers. Who's the victim, the media? Or the charities and organisations who exist to help men? Or the men who are benefitted by the organisations and information? You're applying some kind of purity test to people who want to help where if they get any benefit from it, then you dismiss them and all the work they want to do.

There's a funny line in Peep Show which you reminded me of. The lads are talking to a music manager about signing them Super Hans says "A lot of these b**tards just want to give you an advance, promote your stuff, then make a profit for them and you".

Assuming that the people involved in promoting men's issues are a normal spread of people so some will be deeply decent and some will be deeply unpleasant people, so what? Does them being unpleasant invalidate the good work they of everyone? Do you apply this standard to every organisation and charity who tries to help with an issue or do you just apply the standard to men's issues?

It seems to me that you will say you support addressing men's issues in principle, but couldn't support any effort that uses publicity or has anyone who gets anything from it like profit, or a sense of satisfaction from doing something they believe to be a benefit to others or benefiting from something completely free to the organisation like enhancing their public profile.

Almost every bit of work in the world is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Why should men's issues be any different? How do you expect much work to be done if there is absolutely no pay off for the people doing it? If someone does good work and it raises their profile so they can do other things, so what? It makes it a mutually beneficial arrangement. Why this purity test for men's issues?

Ironicname

It's remarkable how you continually and willfully misrepresent and misunderstand people who do not like or don't agree with international men's day.

It is very possible to dislike a day of people using men's problems that they usually don't give two ****s about in order to garner popularity for one day, but still support (and possibly being one of) those who do the hard work throughout the year.

We are "part of the problem" according to you.

Amazing.

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

It's remarkable how you continually and willfully misrepresent and misunderstand people who do not like or don't agree with international men's day.

It is very possible to dislike a day of people using men's problems that they usually don't give two ****s about in order to garner popularity for one day, but still support (and possibly being one of) those who do the hard work throughout the year.

We are "part of the problem" according to you.

Amazing.

How could you possibly know the bit in bold?

Ironicname

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

How could you possibly know the bit in bold?

Because I know a lot of people who do this

El_Duderino 09

Ironicname wrote: »

Because I know a lot of people who do this

So you're only referring to the people you actually know? And you're not pretending to know about the entire rest of the people who advocate for men's issues and promote IMD as a means of doing so?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So you're only referring to the people you actually know? And you're not pretending to know about the entire rest of the people who advocate for men's issues and promote IMD as a means of doing so?

I think this is what posters are talking about you misrepresenting them.

It was obvious that neither ironicname nor one eyed jack are in no way speaking about the entirety of people who promote IMD.

There is a large swathe of people who jump on the bandwagon and hijack serious matters for their own gain and these are the people that are being talked about here.

It is perfectly reasonable that people who work tirelessly throughout the year would distance themselves from the day where men's issues are pretty much trivialised for the sake of likes and point scoring.

If people want to focus on positives and promote positive aspects of masculinity and why men should be proud, then that's great. I, and others on here, feel that highlighting what is perceived as negatives and pretending you care does more damage than good.

Sure, raising awareness can be a good thing, but I know first hand of people who are going through issues that feel worse when they see their issues being used in such a distasteful manner for one day.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

I think this is what posters are talking about you misrepresenting them.

It was obvious that neither ironicname or one eyed jack are in no way speaking for the entirety of people who promote IMD.

There is a large swathe of people who jump on the bandwagon and hijack serious matters for their own gain and these are the people that are being talked about here.

It is perfectly reasonable that people who work tirelessly throughout the year would distance themselves from the day where men's issues are pretty much trivialised for the sake of likes and point scoring.

If people want to focus on positives and promote positive aspects of masculinity and why men should be proud, then that's great. I, and others on here, feel that highlighting what is perceived as negatives and pretending you care does more damage than good.

Sure, raising awareness can be a good thing, but I know first hand of people who are going through issues that feel worse when they see their issues being used in such a distasteful manner for one day.

They write off the concept of IMD because they know some people who do things on IMD and don't do things for the rest of the year? That's a stupid reason to write off the entire day and what it stands to achieve. This is the purity test I referred to earlier. I don't mind if people get something out of promoting men's issues.

It's not at all reasonable to presume people who work tirelessly throughout the year would distance themselves from the day (we're back to pretending to know the motivations of people we don't know). You're making out that the people who take part in IMD are not the people who work tirelessly to promote men's issues and you have absolutely no basis to make that claim except your own prejudice which is based on pretending to know others' motivations.

IF you believed that was true, you would be suggesting the mental health charities and men's cancer groups, father's rights and suicide prevention groups, don't care about men's issues throughout the rest of the year. And that would be a silly thing to say, wouldn't it?

Reviews and Books Galore

Imo, there is a lot of truth to this theory that men's issue can be shown as long as they show men's 'vulnerability'. You can see the same in regards to YA novels. Really, search google YA men/boy vulnerable and see all the weird articles that come up.



Here's a lovely one. Imo, I skimmed it, and I had to drink a cup of chamomile tea.



https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/how-boys-can-grow-into-real-men-male-authors-fight-toxic-masculinity


And, yes, I do find it creepy that middle aged women* are telling underage boys to be vulnerable.



*The authors above are men.

El_Duderino 09

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Imo, there is a lot of truth to this theory that men's issue can be shown as long as they show men's 'vulnerability'. You can see the same in regards to YA novels. Really, search google YA men/boy vulnerable and see all the weird articles that come up.



Here's a lovely one. Imo, I skimmed it, and I had to drink a cup of chamomile tea.



https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/how-boys-can-grow-into-real-men-male-authors-fight-toxic-masculinity


And, yes, I do find it creepy that middle aged women* are telling underage boys to be vulnerable.



*The authors above are men.

Sure and it might lead to an interesting discussion. Do you want to pop that in a thread about something else? Because this thread is about promoting IMD and that article has absolutely nothing to do with IMD

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They write off the concept of IMD because they know some people who do things on IMD and don't do things for the rest of the year? That's a stupid reason to write off the entire day and what it stands to achieve. This is the purity test I referred to earlier. I don't mind if people get something out of promoting men's issues.

And once again you are ascribing incorrect assumptions to what I posted.

You don't mind people piggybacking using men's issues but I do. That is fine. But for some reason, you want to attack those that don't agree with you .

They are within their rights to write off IMD without being called stupid or being labelled as "part of a problem". It's almost as if you are trying to score points yourself.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's not at all reasonable to presume people who work tirelessly throughout the year would distance themselves from the day (we're back to pretending to know the motivations of people we don't know). You're making out that the people who take part in IMD are not the people who work tirelessly to promote men's issues and you have absolutely no basis to make that claim except your own prejudice which is based on pretending to know others' motivations.

It is absolutely reasonable to say that people who work tirelessly would distance themselves from the day. Nobody said ALL people who partake in IMD are bandwagon jumpers and I never made it out that anyone who does contribute to IMD is in that group.

You continually tell me that I am prejudiced based on assumptions I am making. That is simply not true. I am prejudiced because of knowing people who are negatively affected by the actions of a large group of people who trivialise serious issues on a specific day.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

IF you believed that was true, you would be suggesting the mental health charities and men's cancer groups, father's rights and suicide prevention groups, don't care about men's issues throughout the rest of the year. And that would be a silly thing to say, wouldn't it?

What a ridiculous statement to make. You really are showing yourself up here. Some people don't agree with you regarding IMD and you throw ridiculous accusations and misrepresent their words.

Why can't you accept that people have different opinions?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

And once again you are ascribing incorrect assumptions to what I posted.

You don't mind people piggybacking using men's issues but I do. That is fine. But for some reason, you want to attack those that don't agree with you .

They are within their rights to write off IMD without being called stupid or being labelled as "part of a problem". It's almost as if you are trying to score points yourself.



It is absolutely reasonable to say that people who work tirelessly would distance themselves from the day. Nobody said ALL people who partake in IMD are bandwagon jumpers and I never made it out that anyone who does contribute to IMD is in that group.

You continually tell me that I am prejudiced based on assumptions I am making. That is simply not true. I am prejudiced because of knowing people who are negatively affected by the actions of a large group of people who trivialise serious issues on a specific day.




What a ridiculous statement to make. You really are showing yourself up here. Some people don't agree with you regarding IMD and you throw ridiculous accusations and misrepresent their words.

Why can't you accept that people have different opinions?

The people who care about men's rights would be capitalising on IMD. Obviously. Only the few people who apply this purity test you seem to ascribe to, would avoid it or try to diminish IMD.

You still haven't said why you apply your purity test to men's issues. If someone promotes the Irish heart foundation occasionally (a couple of times a year) but basically spends the rest of the year getting on with their life, going to work etc. Do they fail your purity test and would you hold equally negative sentiment towards the Irish heart foundation or any event which that person show up to support?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The people who care about men's rights would be capitalising on IMD. Obviously. Only the few people who apply this purity test you seem to ascribe to, would avoid it or try to diminish IMD.

Diminish IMD? Nobody is calling for the abolition of it.

Some posters, including myself, feel that it does focus a lot of attention to the negative aspects of masculinity and as I have said on numerous occasions I know a lot of people who are negatively affected by the faux attention it is given.

Purely anecdotal but nonetheless real to me.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You still haven't said why you apply your purity test to men's issues. If someone promotes the Irish heart foundation occasionally (a couple of times a year) but basically spends the rest of the year getting on with their life, going to work etc. Do they fail your purity test and would you hold equally negative sentiment towards the Irish heart foundation or any event which that person show up to support?

Apples and oranges.

You know this.

Anyway, I think our conversation has run its course. Enjoy your IMD.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Diminish IMD? Nobody is calling for the abolition of it.

Some posters, including myself, feel that it does focus a lot of attention to the negative aspects of masculinity and as I have said on numerous occasions I know a lot of people who are negatively affected by the faux attention it is given.

Purely anecdotal but nonetheless real to me.



Apples and oranges.

You know this.

Anyway, I think our conversation has run its course. Enjoy your IMD.

Not at all apples and oranges and I suspect the fact that you don't hold this attitude towards other organisations or apply a purity test towards the people who support or promote them, is the reason you don't want to engage further. Don't you know people with heart conditions who are negatively affected by the faux attention heart charity events are given?

The purity test is nonsense and I've no idea why you'd apply it to IMD and not to everything else. Not apples and oranges and if it were, you'd be able to articulate why.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Not at all apples and oranges and I suspect the fact that you don't hold this attitude towards other organisations or apply a purity test towards the people who support or promote them, is the reason you don't want to engage further. Don't you know people with heart conditions who are negatively affected by the faux attention heart charity events are given?

The purity test is nonsense and I've no idea why you'd apply it to IMD and not to everything else. Not apples and oranges and if it were, you'd be able to articulate why.

Again, you manage to wildly miss the point.

Comparing a day where a large swathe of people pretend to care about men's issues such as suicidal tendancies and depression can be extremely negative towards men who have these issues. Like it or not, there are a lot of people like that.

IMD: "Hey, it's good to talk and be open" "We are here for you"
364 days: "Deadbeat dads", "Check your privilege" "you don't know anything about discrimination"

The people they see pretending to care and then completely have no interest and actively propagate ideas that cause men's issues a day later is completely different to someone talking about cancer once or twice a year.

I'm sick of your condescending tone, on this thread and others, and find it extremely hypocritical of you to lecture and lambaste people for not supporting International men's day when in every thread you post in you openly do your best to belittle people who have the audacity to have a different opinion.

I won't be engaging with you any further.

Church on Tuesday

Lads, let's put the pointless bickering aside, band together and do whatever we feel most comfortable with, IMD or no, in trying to raise awareness or do our bit for Men's health and well being.

Church on Tuesday

Church on Tuesday wrote: »

Lads, let's put the pointless bickering aside, band together and do whatever we feel most comfortable with, IMD or no, in trying to raise awareness or do our bit for Men's health and well being.

Wholeheartedly agree.

Reviews and Books Galore

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

Imo, there is a lot of truth to this theory that men's issue can be shown as long as they show men's 'vulnerability'. You can see the same in regards to YA novels. Really, search google YA men/boy vulnerable and see all the weird articles that come up.



Here's a lovely one. Imo, I skimmed it, and I had to drink a cup of chamomile tea.



https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jul/14/how-boys-can-grow-into-real-men-male-authors-fight-toxic-masculinity


And, yes, I do find it creepy that middle aged women* are telling underage boys to be vulnerable.



*The authors above are men.

Here's another interesting article.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/life/happened-primary-school-went-gender-neutral/

Signs reading “girls are strong” and “boys are sensitive” are hung on classroom walls

The sad thing is, from my research into this whole gender neutral classroom, is that it is not gender neutral. The teachers are often very aware that the boys are boys and the girls are girls, but in a very toxic way.

Reviews and Books Galore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sure and it might lead to an interesting discussion. Do you want to pop that in a thread about something else? Because this thread is about promoting IMD and that article has absolutely nothing to do with IMD

You have no right to define what IMD is not about.

One eyed Jack

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. So if you don't think media attention for men's issues is a good idea, how do yo think they should be addressed and solved?

I really don't get your objection to using the media to promote men's issuers. Who's the victim, the media? Or the charities and organisations who exist to help men? Or the men who are benefitted by the organisations and information? You're applying some kind of purity test to people who want to help where if they get any benefit from it, then you dismiss them and all the work they want to do.

There's a funny line in Peep Show which you reminded me of. The lads are talking to a music manager about signing them Super Hans says "A lot of these b**tards just want to give you an advance, promote your stuff, then make a profit for them and you".

Assuming that the people involved in promoting men's issues are a normal spread of people so some will be deeply decent and some will be deeply unpleasant people, so what? Does them being unpleasant invalidate the good work they of everyone? Do you apply this standard to every organisation and charity who tries to help with an issue or do you just apply the standard to men's issues?

It seems to me that you will say you support addressing men's issues in principle, but couldn't support any effort that uses publicity or has anyone who gets anything from it like profit, or a sense of satisfaction from doing something they believe to be a benefit to others or benefiting from something completely free to the organisation like enhancing their public profile.

Almost every bit of work in the world is a mutually beneficial arrangement. Why should men's issues be any different? How do you expect much work to be done if there is absolutely no pay off for the people doing it? If someone does good work and it raises their profile so they can do other things, so what? It makes it a mutually beneficial arrangement. Why this purity test for men's issues?

I never made any comment about the media, your question was about using IMD to talk about men’s issues, and I disagreed with you on that point.

Now I’m specifically addressing your question about whether or not I apply a purity test to organisations and people who claim to be offering help while serving their own interests. The answer is yes, I do apply that test to everything. That’s why I am critical of anyone who latches on to social issues for their own personal and/or financial gain.

That’s exactly why I am critical of IMD - because I see it as a day where the people who are most vocal in promoting it are doing so for their own personal and financial gain. Their attitudes and their methodology is very similar to your own in that they try to paint anyone who is critical of their efforts to promote themselves as someone who doesn’t care like they do about the issues they’re attempting to raise people’s consciousness of. That’s why I said it sounded familiar - because organisations and individuals throughout human history have used the same divide and conquer strategy in furtherance of their own personal or financial gain.

You ask me how do I expect much work to be done if there is no payoff for the people doing it, which suggests that you aren’t aware of the many, many people who work helping people and don’t want the limelight or the attention on themselves. As far as they’re concerned they just want to see people doing well for themselves. They don’t bother with the gender politics and all the rest of that divisive nonsense, they just do what they do. The thing is - most people in society are like that. They don’t do what they do for themselves, they do it because they are aware of other people and help out where they can.

Then there are the few people in society who don’t do anything for anyone unless there’s something in it for themselves, like personal or financial gain, and it’s those types of people who are always behind initiatives like IMD and promote them as these fantastic initiatives and all the rest of it. In reality all they’re doing is as you suggest - increasing their own public profile for personal or financial gain through activities such as public speaking and fundraising. They’re generating public awareness of themselves, for their own personal and financial gain, and latching on to issues they’re aware that people experience and care about already, and if anyone is critical of their methods - that person should be ashamed of themselves. Pretty much like you tried to do earlier on in the thread, and frankly if I gave a shiny shìte for your passing judgement upon me, your attempt might have worked. It’s that same sort of technique that cults use to recruit members. I commented earlier as an example that Tom Cruise would say Scientology are doing great work, and by your standards of mutual benefit and so on - their success in promoting themselves has been phenomenal, but that help has come at a price for far more people who’s lives have been torn apart by their involvement with Scientology.

It’s the same reason I admitted earlier in the thread that I’d worked in social care for a number of years and it was doing my own mental health no favours - because when you’re trying to protect people from exploitation and people who seek to profit from perpetuating misery, it’s that much harder to do when you’re also fighting against organisations which claim to want to help people, doing the very same thing! I do still work with people, I work with people who have been turned away from organisations as they don’t fit that organisations profile, and I’ve been asked why wouldn’t I set up a charity and all the rest of it. I don’t need to set up a charity because I don’t need money or funding from anyone to do what I do. I don’t need praise and recognition for what I do, but some people do, and those are the sort of people who get behind initiatives like IMD, IWD, etc - they do it because they want the public recognition and public funding, not because they care about the people they claim to represent or serve, but purely for their own personal and financial gain.

I have no wish to be involved in promoting anything or anyone whom I see as ultimately attempting to exploit people for their own personal or financial gain, and that’s why not only do I not wish to promote ideas like IMD, but I’m as critical as I am of the idea. I don’t see it as helping anyone, and to suggest that makes me part of the problem in addressing the issues you purport to care about addressing is no different than a cult which attempts to turn people against the people who care about them for that persons or organisations own personal and/or financial gain.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, you manage to wildly miss the point.

Comparing a day where a large swathe of people pretend to care about men's issues such as suicidal tendancies and depression can be extremely negative towards men who have these issues. Like it or not, there are a lot of people like that.

IMD: "Hey, it's good to talk and be open" "We are here for you"
364 days: "Deadbeat dads", "Check your privilege" "you don't know anything about discrimination"

The people they see pretending to care and then completely have no interest and actively propagate ideas that cause men's issues a day later is completely different to someone talking about cancer once or twice a year.

You have no idea what most people who support IMD do the rest of the year round. You say know some people who are anti men's issues year-round and support IMD. They sound like very unusual people to hold such drastically different opinions of different days. I don't entirely trust your characterisations tbh.

But the fact that's you oppose such an obviously good cause as IMD means you're very much a part of the problem which faces people who want to get the info to the wider public. So boo-hoo if you're not going to engage with the matter any further.

Ironicname

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

But the fact that's you oppose such an obviously good cause as IMD means you're very much a part of the problem which faces people who want to get the info to the wider public. So boo-hoo if you're not going to engage with the matter any further.

Do you bully people in real life too?

The Dunne explained that his real life experiences has soured him on IMD and he has stated that he very much supports men's issues. he should be allowed the courtesy of being able to air his opinion without being told he is part of any problem.

El_Duderino 09

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never made any comment about the media, your question was about using IMD to talk about men’s issues, and I disagreed with you on that point.

Now I’m specifically addressing your question about whether or not I apply a purity test to organisations and people who claim to be offering help while serving their own interests. The answer is yes, I do apply that test to everything. That’s why I am critical of anyone who latches on to social issues for their own personal and/or financial gain.

That’s exactly why I am critical of IMD - because I see it as a day where the people who are most vocal in promoting it are doing so for their own personal and financial gain. Their attitudes and their methodology is very similar to your own in that they try to paint anyone who is critical of their efforts to promote themselves as someone who doesn’t care like they do about the issues they’re attempting to raise people’s consciousness of. That’s why I said it sounded familiar - because organisations and individuals throughout human history have used the same divide and conquer strategy in furtherance of their own personal or financial gain.

You ask me how do I expect much work to be done if there is no payoff for the people doing it, which suggests that you aren’t aware of the many, many people who work helping people and don’t want the limelight or the attention on themselves. As far as they’re concerned they just want to see people doing well for themselves. They don’t bother with the gender politics and all the rest of that divisive nonsense, they just do what they do. The thing is - most people in society are like that. They don’t do what they do for themselves, they do it because they are aware of other people and help out where they can.

Then there are the few people in society who don’t do anything for anyone unless there’s something in it for themselves, like personal or financial gain, and it’s those types of people who are always behind initiatives like IMD and promote them as these fantastic initiatives and all the rest of it. In reality all they’re doing is as you suggest - increasing their own public profile for personal or financial gain through activities such as public speaking and fundraising. They’re generating public awareness of themselves, for their own personal and financial gain, and latching on to issues they’re aware that people experience and care about already, and if anyone is critical of their methods - that person should be ashamed of themselves. Pretty much like you tried to do earlier on in the thread, and frankly if I gave a shiny shìte for your passing judgement upon me, your attempt might have worked. It’s that same sort of technique that cults use to recruit members. I commented earlier as an example that Tom Cruise would say Scientology are doing great work, and by your standards of mutual benefit and so on - their success in promoting themselves has been phenomenal, but that help has come at a price for far more people who’s lives have been torn apart by their involvement with Scientology.

It’s the same reason I admitted earlier in the thread that I’d worked in social care for a number of years and it was doing my own mental health no favours - because when you’re trying to protect people from exploitation and people who seek to profit from perpetuating misery, it’s that much harder to do when you’re also fighting against organisations which claim to want to help people, doing the very same thing! I do still work with people, I work with people who have been turned away from organisations as they don’t fit that organisations profile, and I’ve been asked why wouldn’t I set up a charity and all the rest of it. I don’t need to set up a charity because I don’t need money or funding from anyone to do what I do. I don’t need praise and recognition for what I do, but some people do, and those are the sort of people who get behind initiatives like IMD, IWD, etc - they do it because they want the public recognition and public funding, not because they care about the people they claim to represent or serve, but purely for their own personal and financial gain.

I have no wish to be involved in promoting anything or anyone whom I see as ultimately attempting to exploit people for their own personal or financial gain, and that’s why not only do I not wish to promote ideas like IMD, but I’m as critical as I am of the idea. I don’t see it as helping anyone, and to suggest that makes me part of the problem in addressing the issues you purport to care about addressing is no different than a cult which attempts to turn people against the people who care about them for that persons or organisations own personal and/or financial gain.

Ok. So you say you oppose anyone who does things for financial or other gain. But that's absolutely ridiculous and counter productive. And i's not true either. I really doubt you apply this standard across the board or else you'd hold equal contempt for people who do any work for financial or other gain.

It's such a silly purity test. You might enjoy sitting about, passing judgement on anyone who actually does anything without it being completely silent. But I'm just happy there are organisations who work to publicise the info needed to identify and address men's issues.

So while you say you're supportive of men's issues, It's an odd way to support them by standing in the way of actually doing any thing about them, denigrating those who actually do things about men's issues, and oppose a great initiative like IMD as an opportunity to get public attention for the issues and solutions.

Is there even such thing as an entirely altruistic act? If someone gets something as little as a sense of wellbeing from doing something good, then I imagine they would fall foul of your purity test. The fact is that people usually do things as a mutually beneficial arrangement.

If you care about men's issues then you'd support things that would help address them. And getting public support for identifying problems and solutions involved highlighting those problems and solutions. That's just how the world works.

El_Duderino 09

7 ways you can celebrate International Men’s Day according to Twitter users

I particularly like the last one. Telling someone who you admire or someone who inspires you, that they have had an impact in your life.

"Overall, International Men’s Day is a time to celebrate the positive influence men can and do have on society as a whole, so why not let the men who inspire you know how much you appreciate them?"

rob316

Robert_Beach wrote: »

Movember was discontinued in our workplace last year after operating for numerous previous years. I thought it cringey but meh, always threw them a few quid.

But apparently it excluded people who, well can't grow a tash. So it's gone. We have a cake sale for a cancer charity for all now.

I don't think any International Mens Day stuff would fly.

That's almost as stupid as the Oxford student on Good Morning the other day petitioning for clapping to be banned and replaced with Jazz hands to help people who suffer from anxiety and sensory issues. :rolleyes: