I dont see how the addition of the phrase "coming across as" makes one a statement and the removal makes it an insult
Okay, then let me elaborate. If I felt Binners was an arsehole or a **** then I would've written that. Because I don't know him for real I can only comment on how he's coming across because it might not be his intent to be acting in such a way and he might be unaware of it.
Pointless to jump to conclusions based on a few words that do little to convey the nuances of human interaction.
[img] 
[/img]
🙂
More than one way to skin a puffin, eh...
I dont see how the addition of the phrase "coming across as" makes one a statement and the removal makes it an insult
I know! I know! Is this the one where offence is taken and not given? Where you can say rude things but because you did not intend them to be rude, then they are Ok and you are not rude? Is that the answer?
I've answered with clarity. If you think otherwise then you're trying to make something out of nothing or perhaps, as usual, you're both just looking for internet points and/or an argument.
In fact, you seem to be trying to tell me what I meant in my post, which is a bit weird considering I was the author.
To be honest I welcome the 'bullying' to any of my posts related to the issue of gender.
I find it quite amusing to be honest.
What bothers me more is the way that some people chose to misrepresent and twist what I say in order to paint me in a vile and negative way and accuse me of things that just aren't true. That's borderline libel and people should remember that this stuff doesn't get deleted.
Being an advocate for men's issues does not make me a mysoginist.
More than one way to [s]skin[/s] cook a puffin, eh...
[img] 
[/img]
geetee1972 - you're not wrong in a lot of ways.
Men's mental health is a massive issue and all the other things that you discuss reflect that men in some ways are disadvantaged by current societal norms.
The problem is that a lot of men then pick these things up and use them as justification to continue to suppress or shout down anyone who say 'hang on a mo, men created the society in which these things are happening, run the institutions and services that these men are being failed by'.
It also becomes a useful 'whatabouttery' topic when anyone raises women's rights or concerns for men who wish to continue in a society where they have by far the majority of the social, political and economic power.
So yes, in theory, International Men's day is a great idea. In practice, men spoil it.
What bothers me more is the way that some people chose to misrepresent and twist what I say in order to paint me in a vile and negative way and accuse me of things that just aren't true. That's borderline libel and people should remember that this stuff doesn't get deleted.
I agree and you are constantly subjected to this. What you need is a clear statement of your position with regard to the plight of men in today's society. Without reference to important but loaded issues such as domestic abuse or suicide or educational inequalities
[img] [/img]
/p>
D'ya reckon it tastes like chickeny-fish...?
D'ya reckon it tastes like chickeny-fish...?
Erm... What are we talking about now?
Nope,fishy chicken.
I'd give it a go if it was served in puff pastry. Y'know, like a sausage roll but with puffin meat.
Puffin Puff Pastry Roll
What about testicular cancer? Apparently it's something like a 98.6% male problem. That means nearly all of us are going to die of it at least once.
Without Man Day it could be 100%!
Its nothing like Libel Geetee. Its fair comment.
Its not your support of mens issues thats the issue. Its the total misogynistic postings you continually make and your complete lack of understanding of gender issues.
I really dislike the bullying tone of the posts tho. Quite unpleasant
'hang on a mo, men created the society in which these things are happening, run the institutions and services that these men are being failed by'.
I liked your post Waswas; I understand where you're coming from and I agree that there is some truth in what you're saying, particularly the point quoted above. Obviously I don't agree with you 100% but it's more productive to acknowledge that I also don't disagree with you 100%. I think it's possible for a statement to be both true and false at the same time and more beneficial to society when you focus on the parts you can both agree on.
The point I quote is interesting because it illustrates very well the weakness of any line of reasoning that treats a group of otherwise unrelated or hugely diverse individuals, as a single homogenous entity.
Men are not a homoegenous group by any other characteristic other than being male. Beyond that, we have no more (and equally likely as much) in common with each other than we do with women.
This becomes a real problem when you use a line of reasoning that runs:
Men are the ones in power; men therefore start the wars; so if men are the one dying in those wars they only have themselves to blame.
It's a deeply flawed logic; I'm not sure you were saying that exactly, but it is a line of reasoning that does crop up.
The men starting the wars are not the ones dying in them. The men running the NHS are not the ones that it is failing. The men running the government (but let's not foget it's not remotely just men running the government anymore) are not the ones that are homeless.
The correlation is irrelevant. The experience of the men effected is what's important.
You gotta play the ball not the man though
I disagree.
Then you're wrong, every assertion has to be assessed on it's own merits.
Plus it's not useful to shout someone down for sayign something true just because you don't like other stuff they've said.
....and it's not very nice.
To be honest I welcome the 'bullying' to any of my posts related to the issue of gender.
Nobody likes Ad Homs, but they *are* a kind of a reassuring confirmation that the attacker (probably) can't fault the assertion itself.
correlation is irrelevant. The experience of the men effected is what's important
Agreed, but is that experience different from that of women or is the difference withing groups larger than the difference between groups. The answer to that should inform whether the reponse should be one which is focused on men or one which is united
Agreed, but is that experience different from that of women or is the difference withing groups larger than the difference between groups. The answer to that should inform whether the reponse should be one which is focused on men or one which is united
I suspect that is a very good question, but I confess I don't quite understand it. Can you rephrase it?
I have to agree to some extent that currently Men’s issues are swept under the carpet, but then they have been supresssd for some time whilst we all get to grips with Women’s rights and such. TBH Women’s rights have been well represented and documented but still gender gaps are evident, so for the foreseeable I’m happy to take a back seat (as a man) and support the eradication of any gender limitations placed on Women.
I’ll probably be dead by the time gender is a none issue in society.
[i]I confess I don't quite understand it. Can you rephrase it?[/i]
As an example:
Do men have more difficulty accessing mental health services than women [i]at the point they acknowledge they need help[/i] or do they just delay/avoid seeking help?
The answer to that will determine if we need to improve Mental Health access for both men and women or to work to encourage men to try and access services that already available.
I suspect that is a very good question, but I confess I don't quite understand it. Can you rephrase it?
Men face a variety of problems. The variety of men means that not all men experience these problems in the same way. Women also face a variety of problems. The variety of women means that not all women experience these problems in the same way. In trying to address these problems it can be helpful to look at these as problems faced by a community or a group. Is the natural grouping one which is based on sex / gender or is it one which goes across sex / gender. Do the men who suffer have more in common with other men or with women who suffer. What is the stronger commonality of experience?
Maybe if you had a description of the problems faced by individuals, would you be able to separate them into piles depending on what they described and if so would you then find that those piles were predominantly of one gender?
Then you're wrong, every assertion has to be assessed on it's own merits.
No, you're wrong. The person making the assertion is not irrelevant: their history of posts on similar topics is an important factor when trying to determine where they're coming from. That has absolutely nothing to do with "shouting someone down for telling the truth", regardless of what you may think.
Do the men who suffer have more in common with other men or with women who suffer.
Aha, yes I see your point. Similarly this point also:
Do men have more difficulty accessing mental health services than women at the point they acknowledge they need help or do they just delay/avoid seeking help?
I would make two points in response these (excellent) points.
First, the question of whether men delay seeking help or find it hard to access is interesting in that I honestly don't think it matters IF actually one is a corollary of the other. For example, it’s possible (perhaps even likely) that men don't seek help in part because society discourages them from doing so (because the societal accepted version of masculinity is to be strong, be the provider, be the protector etc, all of which is part of our problem because of course it infantilises women by opposition).
It’s also possible to argue that there is an incumbency on society to create an access point that positively reaches out to men in order to encourage them into the system. This principle is already used to good effect when trying to address other gender imbalances, for example the current efforts to get more women into STEM roles where the effort is that of an outreach programme. The argument here is that because an imbalance exists, it’s not enough to just remove obstacles (such as they exist or have existed), you have to be proactive in order to get equality.
The second point I would make is in response to whether the male experience of a given problem has more in common with other men, or with other women who also experience the problem. I personally think that’s a brilliant summary of the issue; it identifies the heart of the problem, which is that we are very quick as a society to define an issue as being gendered, or racial or such like. Some commentators refer to this as the politics of grievance or the politics of identity. I’m not saying it is that, but I do think that it’s less productive for society to focus so heavily on these otherwise arbitrary links between groups that end up being adversarial in nature when really we should just try and treat the problem as it exists across all groups.
To put it another way, if 80,000 women and 30,000 men experience instances of spousal abuse or domestic violence in a given year, what the hell difference does it make that more women than men are affected? Gender is irrelevant; the instance of spousal abuse or domestic violence is abhorrent and wrong and our response to it should be uniformly condemning. The moment you start to codify the issue by things like gender, you’re ostensibly saying ‘hey mine’s bigger than yours’; that’s a facile argument.
Someone earlier made a very churlish remark to my comment about 85% of suicides being male, suggesting it would be better if it were 50/50. The exact same thing can be said about DV; if we can show (and in some data we have) that men are just as likely to experience DV would that solve the problem? Of course not and to argue such is ridiculous.
I think as a society we will have far greater progress when we are finally able to recognise that regardless of what the split in negative experience is between different groups, those issues are represented across all groups and if the only difference is the degree to which they are represented, then ignore the otherwise superficial codification of those groupings and focus on the problem as experienced by people rather than by men or women etc.
I think you can consider previous posts, but they too must be considered on their merits, so to look back on previous posts and point out inconsistencies is just fine. But if you aren't equipped to deal with the content and reasoning of the argument on its own merits,regardless of who is making the points, then perhaps you should just admit to that and not get involved in that side of it. By all means, if you feels compelled, stand outside of the argument and call people names. At least it doesn't interfere with the discussion.
First, the question of whether men delay seeking help or find it hard to access is interesting.....all that stuff.....
it’s not enough to just remove obstacles (such as they exist or have existed), you have to be proactive in order to get equality.
That seems entirely reasonable.
To put it another way, if 80,000 women and 30,000 men experience instances of spousal abuse or domestic violence in a given year, what the hell difference does it make that more women than men are affected?
That would depend on the commonality of the experience.if women's experience of it were particularly different from men's. Either directly or societal, then there is a case for addressing these separately. Here, one size does not fit all.
those issues are represented across all groups and if the only difference is the degree to which they are represented,
Same response I think, in many cases the difference is in experience rather than degree. But,if the only difference is degree, then I can see why that would seem reasonable. However the fact that it affects one significantly more than another implies that we need to look at the underlying structures which result in one section of society being subject to or more susceptible to whatever issue it is we are considering.
I think you can consider previous posts, but they too must be considered on their merits, so to look back on previous posts and point out inconsistencies is just fine
Sure, but it goes further than that. To give an obvious example, I give more weight to the views of women posting about misogyny.
But if you aren't equipped to deal with the content and reasoning of the argument on its own merits,regardless of who is making the points, then perhaps you should just admit to that and not get involved in that side of it.
I don't wish to disappear down the same rabbit hole for the umpteenth time. If you wish to characterize that as me being too stupid to participate, that's your choice.
By all means, if you feels compelled, stand outside of the argument and call people names. At least it doesn't interfere with the discussion.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "ad hominem" actually means.
That would depend on the commonality of the experience.if women's experience of it were particularly different from men's
Yes this is a good point but I think what you're identifying here is the need for, or value of, a tailored rather than common response.
The more the trend of 'big data' takes off, the more it becomes apparent that a tailored response is both very possible and hugely valuable so I would agree that the disparity in experience should result in a tailored response.
That is not the same thing though as saying that one problem is more important than the other, which is where we end up when we take an adversairial, my problem is bigger than yours, approach to these issues.
I don't wish to disappear down the same rabbit hole for the umpteenth time. If you wish to characterize that as me being too stupid to participate, that's your choice.
Of course it is! 😐
I can't imagine what the alternative might be!
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "ad hominem" actually means.
That's your choice!
That is not the same thing though as saying that one problem is more important than the other, which is where we end up when we take an adversairial, my problem is bigger than yours, approach to these issues
I think I agree there too. However, this argument usually emerges when one group identifies and issue which affects them particularly, then the other group shouts "me too".
then the other group shouts "me too".
The irony of that particular tag isn't lost on me!
The person making the assertion is not irrelevant: their history of posts on similar topics is an important factor when trying to determine where they're coming from.
Where they're coming from *is* irrelevant. Ad Hom Fallacy/Genetic fallacy.
Where they're coming from *is* irrelevant. Ad Hom Fallacy/Genetic fallacy.
The only fallacy is to assume that Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.
excellent. An argument about how to argue 😀
[i]An argument about how to argue[/i]
No it's not!
An argument about how to argue
😀
The only fallacy is to assume that Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy.
<sniffs bait>
<swims off>
<sniffs bait>
<swims off>
Suit yourself. To anyone else interested: "he would say that, wouldn't he", said by Mandy Rice Davies during the Profumo affair, is perhaps the most famous ad hominem in our political history. That's what I mean when I say that it's important consider who is making a point, and why.
That's what I mean when I say that it's important consider who is making a point, and why.
I agree with you.
It's also important to consider the bias of the person making a point about the person making the point because it's also entirely possible that they would also say that wouldn't they.
83% of suicides are by men
That's some quick progress, it was 85% yesterday. Will be down to 50% by the end of November and everyone will be happy.
Will be down to 50% by the end of November and everyone will be happy.
Which means it will be down to 0%
That's some quick progress, it was 85% yesterday. Will be down to 50% by the end of November and everyone will be happy.
Thankyou for your contribution. It was a typo.
It's also important to consider the bias of the person making a point about the person making the point because it's also entirely possible that they would also say that wouldn't they.
It's also important to consider the bias of the person making a point about the person making a point about the person making the point because it's also entirely possible that they would also say that wouldn't they.
It's also important to consider the bias of the person making a point about the person making a point about the person making the point because it's also entirely possible that they would also say that wouldn't they.
Mornington Crescent
