I think our discussion has highlighted that in any exchange there are points of convergence but also of divergence: I am happy with that, because your points have raised some important issues.
However, discussion is not about convincing the other side of every argument: all you can do is explain your view, as you have done, and hope that the other side will find common ground in at least one of your points.
I disagree fundamentally that we do not have a problem, historically, of men’s violence against themselves (i.e. suicide), other men, women, and children: you just cannot keep coming back with counter-arguments when men’s actions, including those of high-profile people like Jimmy Savile, Harvey Weinstein, paedophile bishops and Robert Mugabe are clearly unacceptable. If you keep saying that we are making up a narrative of female victimhood you are missing the point.
We, men, should not come up with counter-arguments of male victimhood but rather ourselves march on the streets and demand an end to war, to men being rapists and violent, and start support groups to encourage men to gather and discuss male violence in the home and away.
Instead, we dump the issue of male violence on women groups and activists and call it ‘women’s issues’. That is also what this thread is about: to take personal responsibility and do something to raise awareness in here of the effects of the worst aspects of male behaviour…
I see no reason for “men” to apologise for “stuff” which is basically fictional - This demand sounds very reminiscent of the exploits of Matthew Hopkins !
I have perhaps been a little surprised at the lack of protest by men on the content of this thread, but perhaps the comments reported in Femail by Ann Widdecombe about women “milking it” whilst men “stand by like wimps - watching”
[Post 805]
Are pertinent here ?
It is also encouraging for good sense and justice that by and large, women are also refusing to join in the “witch-hunt”.
Generations have a way of “rebelling” against the doctrines of their parents and it is to be hoped that Your children will undo some of the excesses of the “Social Justice Warrior Generation” and their “Weaponisation of hypersensitivity”.
History will make it’s own judgement on this period. I am content that it will disagree fundamentally with your assessment.
Investor’s Business Daily last July interviewed Jennifer Barrett of Acorns Grow magazine about why women lag behind men when it comes to investing wealth:
This one is for you @Falstaff and it is exactly what I was trying to say: we, men,must talk about our own issues and get together to resolve them, just like women do…but it rarely happens.
A little hope there that we can achieve a better dialogue - tomorrow perhaps ?
I was quite intrigued about where this was going - until the “John Lennon” stuff a couple of minutes before the end
Maybe ? - we’ll see !
There is a lot of stuff in there which I have already posted - like “Willy MacBride” - and the “Divorce issue” - however blaming men for Avoiding “Primary School teaching” is naive at best ! As I have already posted.
I wonder if there should be a thread on men’s issues, for example on The Lobby: I do not want to discuss them here, personally, because that is not the focus of this thread.
If you feel that you want to invest as much time on men’s issues as you need to fully explore them, then that may be a way round it.
I think your contributions have made some good points but they are pulling the thread into a direction to which I do not intend it to travel. You oppose the main idea of this thread fundamentally, therefore I can see that we would get nowhere trying to talk around that.
Your Father’s Day posts summed up a lot of what forms your thinking on these topics, but it was a thread about fathers and it made sense to discuss those topics there.
I really feed this thread on very little time and sleep and I cannot get into long argumentative discussions with any single forum member on here, which means I will just end up using the ignore tactic… And you deserve better, so that is why I think a separate thread may bring you a better response.
I had decided to edit my last post to suggest that your post last night form the basis of a new thread. There is much discussion to be had on the subject of treatment of boys (and girls) which rightly does not belong in this thread.
That is not the same thing as challenging a few of the underlying assumptions of the thread, which I believe sometimes wanders onto ground which is unstable.
However, as to your suggestion, I do concur that the exploration of the needs of children tends to be ignored in the reinvention of gender roles which seems to be taking place at the moment and such a thread would be the right place to investigate the effects of modern thinking on those children!
I think this is a very powerful assessment of the reality of the situation, which deserves to be a part of this current thread, as well as a part of any other which may evolve.
That generating children is still thought as having to magically happen without the biological time and effort of pregnancy and childbirth; that men are not questioned about their parenting intentions; that women are penalised or seen as unreliable ticking-time-bombs ‘in danger’ of saying any time ‘I am pregnant’; that a culture that sees becoming parents as a luxury lifestyle add-on is ultimately going to generate a Victorian attitude of ‘children should not be heard’.
As a father yourself you may sympathise with the fact that paternity leave is a joke and I really like what some companies are doing, namely allowing two parents to share the parenting leave, so mum can take 3 months and dad the other 3, for example. This is a much more balanced way to allow dads the pleasure of being more involved with seeing their baby’s first steps first hand.
So I think it is a good article because it raises a lot of good points.
I think that is a narrow view. Plus, the US hss no state maternity leave, so it is unpaid leave. And, women’s fertility window has not kept pace with their careers, so it is a difficult choice to delay pregnancy indefinitely Also, you do not just 'get pregnant": it can take years sometimes.
Nowadays people care about your gender, religion or even color skin.
This should not be the reason you hire someone to do the job.
You hire someone because they are an asset for the company and because they can get the job done.
If is a girl, great! if is a boy, great!! but lets not fall on the propaganda that people should be hire because of their gender instead of their abilities to be suitable for the job.
