Though I've always thought it must be fun to be able to write your name in the snow.....
They sell devices aimed at female hikers that would help you accomplish this, if you think this is something missing from your life.
Good grief, the mind boggles!
If I tried to accomplish all the things that I have thought were missing from my life, down through the years, I'd probably be serving a life sentence by now! So I think I'll just continue 'thinking' it might be fun, and leave it at that.
Though any woman who's been caught short on a long journey and doesn't have the nipping behind a tree option might sympathise!
Simon Toad, a late reply, even later because I was distracted before pressing send and did not get back until this morning.
As to Slater and Gordon, I think the answer is that the firm waswhat you say. Minds may differ, but my opinion is that well before the UK foray, it had lost all the positives to which you refer. That's in contrast to Turner Freeman in Sydney which retained that strong party link - albeit to the NSW right.
Gillard was a good deputy to Rudd but not a good party leader. She allowed an unholy coalition of Sussex St and some Victorian left unions to propel her forward and grab the office. That took the party from probably winning the next election comfortably and then a third term after that to the position of barely scraping back in and never being able to get that vital extra term. All made worse when Rudd kept fighting back, sniping away etc. So we had Abbott instead. Only my opinion, mind.
I agree about Slaters. They went badly wrong. I trust Nicola Roxon (another and possibly a better feminist lawyer/politician) on the history of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd debacle. I think Rudd genuinely didn't handle power well, and no-nonsense people like her wouldn't put up with his crap. So they did what politicians do. They organised a coup through the various party and union organs available to them. I think there was also a policy issue involved: the resources rent tax, or super profits tax or something. I think Rudd was proposing to change position. At all events it proved a disaster as you say, but I'm not convinced everything would have gone swimmingly with Rudd continuing in charge. I think he was suffering from the delusion that he was a Labor saint.
My major beef with AFF was that she seemed to be making no distinction whatsoever between female politicians. But she doesn't want to be challenged and has retreated back to the safety of her world view. I don't want to press the issue.
The other thing is hardly anyone except Australians would have been familiar with Julia Gillard. Let alone the ins and outs of the situation years ago with Rudd.
And I say that as a bit of a kiwi who gets to hear things here and there.
Which is why I have not brought up Jenny Shipley, Helen Clark or Jacinda Ardern in this part of the discussion (of women in postions of political power) - who knows them?
IMO the entire business of politics is tainted with corruption.
The democratic model of governance has finally devolved into showing us what it really is: a barely disguised form of mob rule where two or more factions compete for enough influence to line their own pockets and the pockets of their friends and take turns traumatizing the electorate in order to win enough support in order to bring about just enough change to keep things exactly as they are.
So I hold in fairly low esteem anybody who makes their living in that arena, I don't care if you are a man a woman or a rainbow farting unicorn.
But as I said, we're all here for our own experiences.
Gillard was mentioned. She was disparaged unfairly but indirectly. I took the trouble to inform people of her achievements and suggested that the characterisation of her by AFF (an indirect characterisation) was wrong. Instead of having another look, AFF chose to double-down. She continues to do that, now broadening her attack to democracy itself.
Gillard was mentioned. She was disparaged unfairly but indirectly. I took the trouble to inform people of her achievements and suggested that the characterisation of her by AFF (an indirect characterisation) was wrong. Instead of having another look, AFF chose to double-down. She continues to do that, now broadening her attack to democracy itself.
You know, you revealed quite a lot about yourself in the other thread, about growing up in a household where both parents regularly give vent to their tempers, and other personal details about how you operate in the workplace, that make me think that you have operated pretty successfully in this manner in part by seeing your parents model this kind of righteous wrath as a successful way of getting what they want.
I feel really sorry for the child who had to navigate in that kind of environment. It must have been awfully stressful.
I'm inclined to view your wind-up and defense of politicians and democracy as being an emotional reaction to someone who doesn't treasure what you see as the defense of the helpless in the same light.
So I would love to say to that child who was defenseless against his parents' tantrums - it's all going to be OK. What AFF thinks doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this world, and you're safe, her disapproval of the way things are isn't going to make the world a less pleasant place to be in than it already is.
Really.
I'm not going to abandon my position if you raise a mob of angry villagers, though if it makes you feel better then it's OK by me if you do.
But right at this moment I just really feel like giving you a hug.
Gillard was mentioned. She was disparaged unfairly but indirectly. I took the trouble to inform people of her achievements and suggested that the characterisation of her by AFF (an indirect characterisation) was wrong. Instead of having another look, AFF chose to double-down. She continues to do that, now broadening her attack to democracy itself.
You know, you revealed quite a lot about yourself in the other thread, about growing up in a household where both parents regularly give vent to their tempers, and other personal details about how you operate in the workplace, that make me think that you have operated pretty successfully in this manner in part by seeing your parents model this kind of righteous wrath as a successful way of getting what they want.
I feel really sorry for the child who had to navigate in that kind of environment. It must have been awfully stressful.
I'm inclined to view your wind-up and defense of politicians and democracy as being an emotional reaction to someone who doesn't treasure what you see as the defense of the helpless in the same light.
So I would love to say to that child who was defenseless against his parents' tantrums - it's all going to be OK. What AFF thinks doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this world, and you're safe, her disapproval of the way things are isn't going to make the world a less pleasant place to be in than it already is.
Really.
I'm not going to abandon my position if you raise a mob of angry villagers, though if it makes you feel better then it's OK by me if you do.
But right at this moment I just really feel like giving you a hug.
Gillard was mentioned. She was disparaged unfairly but indirectly. I took the trouble to inform people of her achievements and suggested that the characterisation of her by AFF (an indirect characterisation) was wrong. Instead of having another look, AFF chose to double-down. She continues to do that, now broadening her attack to democracy itself.
You know, you revealed quite a lot about yourself in the other thread, about growing up in a household where both parents regularly give vent to their tempers, and other personal details about how you operate in the workplace, that make me think that you have operated pretty successfully in this manner in part by seeing your parents model this kind of righteous wrath as a successful way of getting what they want.
I feel really sorry for the child who had to navigate in that kind of environment. It must have been awfully stressful.
I'm inclined to view your wind-up and defense of politicians and democracy as being an emotional reaction to someone who doesn't treasure what you see as the defense of the helpless in the same light.
So I would love to say to that child who was defenseless against his parents' tantrums - it's all going to be OK. What AFF thinks doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this world, and you're safe, her disapproval of the way things are isn't going to make the world a less pleasant place to be in than it already is.
Really.
I'm not going to abandon my position if you raise a mob of angry villagers, though if it makes you feel better then it's OK by me if you do.
But right at this moment I just really feel like giving you a hug.
AFF
This does not (to me) read as a kind use of a costly personal revelation.
Right at this moment I just want to take your pop psychiatry and light it up with the power of a thousand suns. I've read few things one here (and remember I have to read them all) that have been quite so eye-wateringly nauseating as your reply. I'd vomit into my waste bin if it was waterproof.
There have been plenty of good female politicians. Mo Mowlem of blessed memory. Barbara Castle. Shirley Williams. And I'm barely scratching the surface of my memory. Bernadette Devlin. Betty Boothroyd. Diane Abbot. Case closed. If you want to move somewhere else with a system of governance that suits you better, knock yourself out, or start a revolution. The future belongs to those who bother to turn up - these women bothered.
This does not (to me) read as a kind use of a costly personal revelation.
Yes, this is hell, but really...
Asher
I don't know how much kinder I can be, in type.
We are all hurting here. This is an incendiary topic and it's not reasonable to think we're not going to hit each others hot buttons.
I'm opting to try to look for where the hurt is and embrace that. If I can't appreciate the POV I can sure appreciate the one who is hurting.
So I'm hugging.
AFF
I recognise your goodwill here. It is so difficult here, as you rightly comment.
I do, however, find myself wondering how I as a male poster might be received if I had hugged without consent, even virtually, regardless of any good intentions.
This does not (to me) read as a kind use of a costly personal revelation.
Yes, this is hell, but really...
Asher
I don't know how much kinder I can be, in type.
We are all hurting here. This is an incendiary topic and it's not reasonable to think we're not going to hit each others hot buttons.
I'm opting to try to look for where the hurt is and embrace that. If I can't appreciate the POV I can sure appreciate the one who is hurting.
So I'm hugging.
AFF
I recognise your goodwill here. It is so difficult here, as you rightly comment.
I do, however, find myself wondering how I as a male poster might be received if I had hugged without consent, even virtually, regardless of any good intentions.
This does not (to me) read as a kind use of a costly personal revelation.
Yes, this is hell, but really...
Asher
I don't know how much kinder I can be, in type.
We are all hurting here. This is an incendiary topic and it's not reasonable to think we're not going to hit each others hot buttons.
I'm opting to try to look for where the hurt is and embrace that. If I can't appreciate the POV I can sure appreciate the one who is hurting.
So I'm hugging.
AFF
I recognise your goodwill here. It is so difficult here, as you rightly comment.
I do, however, find myself wondering how I as a male poster might be received if I had hugged without consent, even virtually, regardless of any good intentions.
OK so backing away from the hug position but still appreciating ST for everything he has endured in order to become the one I am interacting with today.
It's worth asking, though, whether the reason men are diagnosed more often is because women are going undiagnosed, and not because they are in fact in better health. ...
There is also the fact that women's reports of pain are much more likely to be dissed by doctors.
We were discussing this in my cancer support group this morning. One of our number had Stage III breast cancer 20 years ago. Eight years after that, she started having pain and itching in her chest; she reported it to various docs over the years, but not one of them bothered to order up any tests to see what the cause might be. Finally, she seemed to be having a heart attack, and had an MRI. Lo and behold, she had an enormous tumor in her chest wall.
She was a fighter, and overcame it for quite some time. She got into a drug trial, and although the FDA decided not to approve it for breast cancer patients (too few were benefiting from it), she was able to get a compassionate use exemption for several years. Then her oncologist decided, about 18 months ago, to take her off it "to see what happens." What happened is that it went into her liver. She died in October.
Do not dish me any crap about the medical system being set up to favor women. It's just not true.
AFF, you have totally misread me. My revelation, such that it was, was of my parents behavior towards those they viewed as opposed to them. They gave me a loving, stable and safe childhood. Hug away virtually, but don't think I would be comforted by a hug in person. I endure hugs, but would prefer a nod a smile and a talk. And as for politics, give me a feisty argument. Nothing else will satisfy.
I was angry with you because you said something stupid and in doing so you besmirched the reputation of a politician who has been an effective feminist all her life and who's work on behalf of women is bearing obvious fruit now. She was in the list put to you by Gee D.
I became exasperated with you because instead of dealing with the issue, you avoided it, when you could so easily have said something like "Gillard? Oh sorry. I don't know her. No she doesn't seem like a token woman, or a house slave."
This business of my upbringing is yet another avoidance. It looks like you are one of those shipmates, and there are a few, who just can't bear to make a concession. Mind you, most of them will seek to argue the point out, not try and swamp it with silliness. The absolute best thing you can do to avoid making a concession is to stop posting on the thread for a couple of days. By then, it will have moved on and you, like Arthur Fonzarelli, can avoid saying 'I was wrong'.
It may be just the nature of this thread, but AFF seems wedded to the use of a single lens to view inequality (gender).
The research I have read would suggest that (at least in the UK) affluence and education is a much more significant measure to use across a range of issues.
Don't get me wrong, toxic masculinity is a thing and it is a bad thing...but, you know, its not the only thing...
And I am sure that no one here thinks that if toxic masculinity were to cease, then inequality in the most broad terms would also cease.
Regards
Asher
I totally agree.
But this particular thread is about toxic masculinity, so I am confining my comments to the topic at hand.
There's enough fodder for several threads in the other issues of power inequality.
Toxic masculinity is a symptom of a complete imbalance. I don't feel that going back to the Age of Chivalry is going to fix the other issues.
AFF
We've never been in an age of Chivalry so have nothing to go back to. We have to work it out for ourselves to the profit and benefit of everyone equally.
What gives me hope that men can unlearn the macho bs that is such a part of toxic masculinity is reading Matt Haig on how he learned to be more vulnerable and open in discussing his depression.
Tim Winton too, the Australian novelist who talks about how toxic masculinity is what shames the tenderness out of boys and keeps them 'shackled to misogyny'.
No matter what went down with the girl's mother, the father should absolutely have stuck around and modelled decent male behaviour to her, guided and guarded her through her childhood and adolescence.
This is another thing that I can't imagine being said with the roles reversed. In fact, to my mind one of the most significant feminist victories of the twentieth century was the widespread agreement that a woman absolutely should not stick around no matter what goes down with her husband/boyfriend/partner, be it for the sake of their children or not.
I will welcome the day when we can all agree that that is true of any partner in any relationship.
My recollection of the 20th century is that women used to be told it was their duty to stay for the children even if they were having the shit kicked out of them every day by their loving husband. That advice began to change as domestic violence stopped being a private matter between married couples and started to be treated as it always was: a fucking evil crime.
You misunderstand me. Even if an adult relationship ends, a child, as far as it is possible, ought to have the love of both parents. This can be done between two households.
A man leaving the family house and using that as an excuse to just fuck off out of their child's life is snake-belly low.
You misunderstand me. Even if an adult relationship ends, a child, as far as it is possible, ought to have the love of both parents. This can be done between two households.
A man leaving the family house and using that as an excuse to just fuck off out of their child's life is snake-belly low.
The men I know who have left the family house are facing 15 years in a bed sit whilst all their money goes to maintain the 'family' home. Nowhere to take the kids, no chance of overnighting them.
AFAICS, the situation of men that leave is often really tough. I met lots of men inside whose story ark was (children, wife, job, house, car)-(played away)-(chucked out)-(bedsit)-(drink/drugs)-(homelessness)-(addiction)-(prison).
Yeah, they made their bed, let them lie in it. Snake-belly low the lot of them. Let's judge them! That helps..
Is it much different for some men where it's their missus who plays away?.......
Asher
(Disclaimer: I recognise that the situation for women who are left is shit, but DocTor was being a cock)
You misunderstand me. Even if an adult relationship ends, a child, as far as it is possible, ought to have the love of both parents. This can be done between two households.
A man leaving the family house and using that as an excuse to just fuck off out of their child's life is snake-belly low.
The men I know who have left the family house are facing 15 years in a bed sit whilst all their money goes to maintain the 'family' home. Nowhere to take the kids, no chance of overnighting them.
AFAICS, the situation of men that leave is often really tough. I met lots of men inside whose story ark was (children, wife, job, house, car)-(played away)-(chucked out)-(bedsit)-(drink/drugs)-(homelessness)-(addiction)-(prison).
Yeah, they made their bed, let them lie in it. Snake-belly low the lot of them. Let's judge them! That helps..
Is it much different for some men where it's their missus who plays away?.......
Asher
(Disclaimer: I recognise that the situation for women who are left is shit, but DocTor was being a cock)
This incarnates the maxim "an eye for an eye makes everyone blind." There has to be another way. A reparative way, somehow, which repairs the lives of both parties.
Yes. And blaming women and engaging in whataboutery isn't the path.
Good job I didn't blame women then isn't it you jizz crusted wank sock.
And how is it whataboutery to directly address : 'A man leaving the family house and using that as an excuse..is snake belly low'
You know those blokes sleeping in shop doorways? Yes, those ones we all pass in town? Do you share your helpful wisdom with them, tell 'em that they are 'snake-belly low' as you get your big issue?
ISTM that sustainable positive changes comes from groups developing common ground. The Guardian links I posted upthread are a useful exemplar of this being attempted on some similar territory to this thread.
What fucks me off about discussions like this, is that there are some really great discussions on how shit men are, but very little vision of a non-toxic masculinity that takes into account male identity; and men are only welcome to comment if they do so on their knees.
'What shall we do about toxic masculinity?' Tell men they are shit in louder and louder voices until they all change.....
Dear oh dear. Speaking the truth is a revolutionary act still.
So is the ability to parse English.
You do not make excuses for men who abandon their children. Because that's just shit. I appreciate that some relationships fall apart because of bad behaviour. Do you genuinely think that should mean men (and it is usually men) should be allowed to abrogate their parental responsibilities to their children? Because all I'm hearing here is abject whining and a blunt refusal to own our shit.
You want something positive? Stick around for your kids and try and be a positive influence on them, whether or not you still live with, or even get on with, their mother. I can't quite believe I'm having to spell this out. And stop making fucking excuses for men who chose not to.
So, to be clear, there is no nuanced conversation to be had about the impact of prison, homelessness, addiction and poverty on men's parenting...cos that would be 'making fucking excuses.'
And the idea that you characterise these issues as 'choices and 'excuses' quite a move.
You misunderstand me. Even if an adult relationship ends, a child, as far as it is possible, ought to have the love of both parents. This can be done between two households.
A man leaving the family house and using that as an excuse to just fuck off out of their child's life is snake-belly low.
The men I know who have left the family house are facing 15 years in a bed sit whilst all their money goes to maintain the 'family' home. Nowhere to take the kids, no chance of overnighting them.
AFAICS, the situation of men that leave is often really tough. I met lots of men inside whose story ark was (children, wife, job, house, car)-(played away)-(chucked out)-(bedsit)-(drink/drugs)-(homelessness)-(addiction)-(prison).
Yeah, they made their bed, let them lie in it. Snake-belly low the lot of them. Let's judge them! That helps..
Is it much different for some men where it's their missus who plays away?.......
Asher
(Disclaimer: I recognise that the situation for women who are left is shit, but DocTor was being a cock)
I have no notion of what the norms are for separation agreement, custody, child and spousal support are in the UK, but in the US, despite many many howls from "men's rights" groups who claim exactly what Asher is describing above, study after study has shown that following divorce, women's economic status almost always declines while men's economic status improves (with exceptions of course). It is obviously true that maintaining two households is far more expensive than one (the family home almost always needing to be sold as a result) but in the US anyway, it is generally the woman who is taking the bulk of that hit. Custody is generally shared 50/50 if the husband requests it, yet again, studies show women still generally end up having the kids more often than the man. All of the above is one of the more significant factors in why the rate of children living in poverty is so high in the US.
Oookay, you got some issues to work through here. I'm not your counsellor, and I'm not taking on clients either.
Most - and I mean most - men who walk away from their families aren't in prison, aren't homeless, aren't addicted and aren't in poverty. Those who are need our compassion and our help. But simply refusing to acknowledge that it is absolutely a manifestation of the toxic masculinity we find in our society that fathers can simply cut them selves off from the life of their children with pretty much zero comeback or accountability is ... wilfully perverse.
You are part of the problem. Try and be part of the solution instead.
Overall, 7% of people in the UK are in persistent poverty – 4.6 million people. The highest rate of persistent poverty is among lone-parent families (24%), followed by single men without children (12%)
Oookay, you got some issues to work through here. I'm not your counsellor, and I'm not taking on clients either.
Most - and I mean most - men who walk away from their families aren't in prison, aren't homeless, aren't addicted and aren't in poverty. Those who are need our compassion and our help. But simply refusing to acknowledge that it is absolutely a manifestation of the toxic masculinity we find in our society that fathers can simply cut them selves off from the life of their children with pretty much zero comeback or accountability is ... wilfully perverse.
You are part of the problem. Try and be part of the solution instead.
(crossposted with cliffdweller)
Thank you. Agreed, most aren't. but addiction, prison and homelessness are predominantly male issues, and impact heavily on male parenting where they do occur.
People become homeless for lots of different reasons. There are social causes of homelessness, such as a lack of affordable housing, poverty and unemployment; and life events which cause individuals to become homeless.
People can become homeless when they leave prison, care or the army with no home to go to. Many homeless women have escaped a violent relationship.
Women do also become homeless through relationship breakdown too - says this woman, through gritted teeth, who has been homeless twice for that reason. If men are violent enough the only way to escape is leave, because evicting those men isn't necessarily a safe option.
And homeless is complicated - men are more likely to be seen rough sleeping, but there is a lot of hidden homelessness. And women and kids are often part of that problem.
Nevertheless, whoever is homeless, it is often true that it's closer to us than we think, and that even reasonably able, well-off people can find themselves vulnerable to it through unexpected, uncontrollable circumstances.
People become homeless for lots of different reasons. There are social causes of homelessness, such as a lack of affordable housing, poverty and unemployment; and life events which cause individuals to become homeless.
People can become homeless when they leave prison, care or the army with no home to go to. Many homeless women have escaped a violent relationship.
Women do also become homeless through relationship breakdown too - says this woman, through gritted teeth, who has been homeless twice for that reason. If men are violent enough the only way to escape is leave, because evicting those men isn't necessarily a safe option.
And homeless is complicated - men are more likely to be seen rough sleeping, but there is a lot of hidden homelessness. And women and kids are often part of that problem.
Agreed. The profiles of male and female homelessness are different. They have distinct presentations. Homelessness is an issue that impacts terribly on both men and women, in different ways. Like just about all other issues.
Nevertheless, whoever is homeless, it is often true that it's closer to us than we think, and that even reasonably able, well-off people can find themselves vulnerable to it through unexpected, uncontrollable circumstances.
Noted. And I too, like others here, have experienced homelessness.
I will plead context - my earlier rant at DocTor referred explicitly to street homeless.
Thank you, @Doc Tor, @Moo, @Curiosity killed, et al. Some men just have to blame women for their problems, no matter their behavior.
This is really disappointing. I have not in any of my posts 'blamed women' for men's problems. What I have attempted to do is raise some of the issues that impact on men.
I get that there is no willingness to address the real issues I posted up thread:
' sustainable positive changes comes from groups developing common ground'
a plea to develop a 'vision of a non-toxic masculinity that takes into account male identity' and experiences
This thread is a bit like sitting in my school staffroom yesterday:
- 5 women staff and 1 male
- 5 women sharing stories of how shit their (male) partners are
- Male asks if this is helpful
- Told to shut up, 'cos that is their experience
@asher - and neither have I attacked men in this situation - but I have corrected the misapprehensions in your posts by linking to recognised research and information from reputable organisations.
There are problems with male homelessness and single male poverty, I wasn't disagreeing with that, but single men were second on the list of those in poverty, which is not what you were saying. The causes of homelessness are a mixture of the high costs of housing, low wages and life events that disrupt the delicate balance that allows most people to cope. Divorce being one of those life events, but illness is as disruptive. And a significantly higher proportion of rough sleepers are ex-prison (40%) or services (7%)¹. The environment of toxic masculinity we all live in means men tend not to seek help for underlying issues and choose to self-medicate with alcohol and drugs. And alcoholism or drug addiction tends to compound anyone's difficulties.
Before you joined this discussion, there had been several comments suggesting that toxic masculinity helps neither men nor women. It is no more helpful for men to be brought up to believe they shouldn't be girls and should manage their own feelings than it does running down women by using language that has most insults for both men and women being feminine.
There are problems in society that encourage male recklessness and their higher prison rates. The services are, very slowly, getting better at supporting their ex-servicemen, but it's something that's been needed for a long time.
@asher - and neither have I attacked men in this situation - but I have corrected the misapprehensions in your posts by linking to recognised research and information from reputable organisations.
There are problems with male homelessness and single male poverty, I wasn't disagreeing with that, but single men were second on the list of those in poverty, which is not what you were saying. The causes of homelessness are a mixture of the high costs of housing, low wages and life events that disrupt the delicate balance that allows most people to cope. Divorce being one of those life events, but illness is as disruptive. And a significantly higher proportion of rough sleepers are ex-prison (40%) or services (7%)¹. The environment of toxic masculinity we all live in means men tend not to seek help for underlying issues and choose to self-medicate with alcohol and drugs. And alcoholism or drug addiction tends to compound anyone's difficulties.
Before you joined this discussion, there had been several comments suggesting that toxic masculinity helps neither men nor women. It is no more helpful for men to be brought up to believe they shouldn't be girls and should manage their own feelings than it does running down women by using language that has most insults for both men and women being feminine.
There are problems in society that encourage male recklessness and their higher prison rates. The services are, very slowly, getting better at supporting their ex-servicemen, but it's something that's been needed for a long time.
Thank you. I joined this discussion before the thread split, and have posts on all three pages.
I have read psychologists who suggest that some of the elements that you locate in toxic masculinity (recklessness, risk taking and lack of self care) are rooted in biological drivers (rather than societally / culturally formed) . If they are right, they it may be that men are, from their mother's wombs, toxic.
The servicemen I knew in prison were all army, largely infantry. The largest majority had pretty serious PTSD.
But boys shouldn't be encouraged to be more reckless and lacking in self-care. The sort of things we see in toddler groups when a boy barges through, and everyone comments: "Oh, boys will be boys". That's societal, rife and continuous. Mothers who object and say "Boy or not, he still looks out for other toddlers and apologises," get chastised by the other parents for bringing up a girly man or wuss.
It's also very difficult to tell when societal influences start - people treat babies differently if they believe they are boys, rather than girls.
The servicemen I knew in prison were all army, largely infantry. The largest majority had pretty serious PTSD.
This is depressing but not surprising. The armed services (especially the infantry) inculcate physical violence alongside a extreme tribalism. Once cut adrift from this, it would take a very strong character to regain their bearings.
As to your staff room experience, you tried to police a conversation between women and were told to fuck off. I don't see anything wrong there.
But boys shouldn't be encouraged to be more reckless and lacking in self-care. The sort of things we see in toddler groups when a boy barges through, and everyone comments: "Oh, boys will be boys". That's societal, rife and continuous. Mothers who object and say "Boy or not, he still looks out for other toddlers and apologises," get chastised by the other parents for bringing up a girly man or wuss.
It's also very difficult to tell when societal influences start - people treat babies differently if they believe they are boys, rather than girls.
You are braver than me here! Commenting on the contribution of mothers to raising toxic sons!
However, the contributions of both biology and nurture are important
"As to your staff room experience, you tried to police a conversation between women and were told to fuck off. I don't see anything wrong there"
It's always edifying when unsure about a protected characteristic to swap it out for another, and test our response. So, how about this:
- 5 men staff and 1 female
- 5 men sharing stories of how shit their (female) partners are
- female asks if this is helpful
- Told to shut up, 'cos that is their experience
Nothing? On the assumption that the complaints are of lack of hygiene, tidiness, household chores, time spent together and childcare, and the excess of drinking, nights out not with partner, money spent on hobbies, working hours.
Even if the men were talking about last night's match, it's not up to anyone to shit all over that.
People are allowed to talk about stuff. (I worked in a primary school for 8 years. I was one of 3 male staff members. I heard all manner of things and managed not to tell anyone that they couldn't discuss their domestic arrangements with their colleagues even once. Honestly, it wasn't difficult.)
@asher, I get the feeling you really don't understand much about how sexism operates in society.
What women choose to share with one another about their personal lives is none of your business. I doubt they were 'shitting on men'. It is more likely that they were talking about how to deal with abusive partners or how to demand more equity in sharing household tasks at home.
One of the defining characteristics of toxic masculinity is for me what you are doing here by describing interactions between men and women as essentially competitive and not co-operative. A male staff member trusted enough to listen in to a conversation like this, would have said very little and probably have learned a great deal. I get the feeling you were eavesdropping and looking for a way to defend the indefensible, so that you could butt into the conversation and 'show them up'.
Comments
Good grief, the mind boggles!
If I tried to accomplish all the things that I have thought were missing from my life, down through the years, I'd probably be serving a life sentence by now! So I think I'll just continue 'thinking' it might be fun, and leave it at that.
Though any woman who's been caught short on a long journey and doesn't have the nipping behind a tree option might sympathise!
I agree about Slaters. They went badly wrong. I trust Nicola Roxon (another and possibly a better feminist lawyer/politician) on the history of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd debacle. I think Rudd genuinely didn't handle power well, and no-nonsense people like her wouldn't put up with his crap. So they did what politicians do. They organised a coup through the various party and union organs available to them. I think there was also a policy issue involved: the resources rent tax, or super profits tax or something. I think Rudd was proposing to change position. At all events it proved a disaster as you say, but I'm not convinced everything would have gone swimmingly with Rudd continuing in charge. I think he was suffering from the delusion that he was a Labor saint.
My major beef with AFF was that she seemed to be making no distinction whatsoever between female politicians. But she doesn't want to be challenged and has retreated back to the safety of her world view. I don't want to press the issue.
And I say that as a bit of a kiwi who gets to hear things here and there.
Which is why I have not brought up Jenny Shipley, Helen Clark or Jacinda Ardern in this part of the discussion (of women in postions of political power) - who knows them?
The democratic model of governance has finally devolved into showing us what it really is: a barely disguised form of mob rule where two or more factions compete for enough influence to line their own pockets and the pockets of their friends and take turns traumatizing the electorate in order to win enough support in order to bring about just enough change to keep things exactly as they are.
So I hold in fairly low esteem anybody who makes their living in that arena, I don't care if you are a man a woman or a rainbow farting unicorn.
But as I said, we're all here for our own experiences.
It is what it is but I don't have to like it.
AFF
You know, you revealed quite a lot about yourself in the other thread, about growing up in a household where both parents regularly give vent to their tempers, and other personal details about how you operate in the workplace, that make me think that you have operated pretty successfully in this manner in part by seeing your parents model this kind of righteous wrath as a successful way of getting what they want.
I feel really sorry for the child who had to navigate in that kind of environment. It must have been awfully stressful.
I'm inclined to view your wind-up and defense of politicians and democracy as being an emotional reaction to someone who doesn't treasure what you see as the defense of the helpless in the same light.
So I would love to say to that child who was defenseless against his parents' tantrums - it's all going to be OK. What AFF thinks doesn't amount to a hill of beans in this world, and you're safe, her disapproval of the way things are isn't going to make the world a less pleasant place to be in than it already is.
Really.
I'm not going to abandon my position if you raise a mob of angry villagers, though if it makes you feel better then it's OK by me if you do.
But right at this moment I just really feel like giving you a hug.
AFF
This does not (to me) read as a kind use of a costly personal revelation.
Yes, this is hell, but really...
Asher
There have been plenty of good female politicians. Mo Mowlem of blessed memory. Barbara Castle. Shirley Williams. And I'm barely scratching the surface of my memory. Bernadette Devlin. Betty Boothroyd. Diane Abbot. Case closed. If you want to move somewhere else with a system of governance that suits you better, knock yourself out, or start a revolution. The future belongs to those who bother to turn up - these women bothered.
But I'm still hugging.
AFF
I don't know how much kinder I can be, in type.
We are all hurting here. This is an incendiary topic and it's not reasonable to think we're not going to hit each others hot buttons.
I'm opting to try to look for where the hurt is and embrace that. If I can't appreciate the POV I can sure appreciate the one who is hurting.
So I'm hugging.
AFF
I do, however, find myself wondering how I as a male poster might be received if I had hugged without consent, even virtually, regardless of any good intentions.
Best wishes
Asher
Ahhhh!
You are right!!
We're totally fucked aren't we?
AFF
Completely fucked!
What do you propose?
Or better yet what does Simon propose?
AFF
Should go without saying, but sadly (angeringly) does not.
We were discussing this in my cancer support group this morning. One of our number had Stage III breast cancer 20 years ago. Eight years after that, she started having pain and itching in her chest; she reported it to various docs over the years, but not one of them bothered to order up any tests to see what the cause might be. Finally, she seemed to be having a heart attack, and had an MRI. Lo and behold, she had an enormous tumor in her chest wall.
She was a fighter, and overcame it for quite some time. She got into a drug trial, and although the FDA decided not to approve it for breast cancer patients (too few were benefiting from it), she was able to get a compassionate use exemption for several years. Then her oncologist decided, about 18 months ago, to take her off it "to see what happens." What happened is that it went into her liver. She died in October.
Do not dish me any crap about the medical system being set up to favor women. It's just not true.
I was angry with you because you said something stupid and in doing so you besmirched the reputation of a politician who has been an effective feminist all her life and who's work on behalf of women is bearing obvious fruit now. She was in the list put to you by Gee D.
I became exasperated with you because instead of dealing with the issue, you avoided it, when you could so easily have said something like "Gillard? Oh sorry. I don't know her. No she doesn't seem like a token woman, or a house slave."
This business of my upbringing is yet another avoidance. It looks like you are one of those shipmates, and there are a few, who just can't bear to make a concession. Mind you, most of them will seek to argue the point out, not try and swamp it with silliness. The absolute best thing you can do to avoid making a concession is to stop posting on the thread for a couple of days. By then, it will have moved on and you, like Arthur Fonzarelli, can avoid saying 'I was wrong'.
We've never been in an age of Chivalry so have nothing to go back to. We have to work it out for ourselves to the profit and benefit of everyone equally.
Tim Winton too, the Australian novelist who talks about how toxic masculinity is what shames the tenderness out of boys and keeps them 'shackled to misogyny'.
This is another thing that I can't imagine being said with the roles reversed. In fact, to my mind one of the most significant feminist victories of the twentieth century was the widespread agreement that a woman absolutely should not stick around no matter what goes down with her husband/boyfriend/partner, be it for the sake of their children or not.
I will welcome the day when we can all agree that that is true of any partner in any relationship.
Regards
Asher
A man leaving the family house and using that as an excuse to just fuck off out of their child's life is snake-belly low.
The men I know who have left the family house are facing 15 years in a bed sit whilst all their money goes to maintain the 'family' home. Nowhere to take the kids, no chance of overnighting them.
AFAICS, the situation of men that leave is often really tough. I met lots of men inside whose story ark was (children, wife, job, house, car)-(played away)-(chucked out)-(bedsit)-(drink/drugs)-(homelessness)-(addiction)-(prison).
Yeah, they made their bed, let them lie in it. Snake-belly low the lot of them. Let's judge them! That helps..
Is it much different for some men where it's their missus who plays away?.......
Asher
(Disclaimer: I recognise that the situation for women who are left is shit, but DocTor was being a cock)
This incarnates the maxim "an eye for an eye makes everyone blind." There has to be another way. A reparative way, somehow, which repairs the lives of both parties.
Good job I didn't blame women then isn't it you jizz crusted wank sock.
And how is it whataboutery to directly address : 'A man leaving the family house and using that as an excuse..is snake belly low'
You know those blokes sleeping in shop doorways? Yes, those ones we all pass in town? Do you share your helpful wisdom with them, tell 'em that they are 'snake-belly low' as you get your big issue?
ISTM that sustainable positive changes comes from groups developing common ground. The Guardian links I posted upthread are a useful exemplar of this being attempted on some similar territory to this thread.
What fucks me off about discussions like this, is that there are some really great discussions on how shit men are, but very little vision of a non-toxic masculinity that takes into account male identity; and men are only welcome to comment if they do so on their knees.
'What shall we do about toxic masculinity?' Tell men they are shit in louder and louder voices until they all change.....
Good job
Asher
So is the ability to parse English.
You do not make excuses for men who abandon their children. Because that's just shit. I appreciate that some relationships fall apart because of bad behaviour. Do you genuinely think that should mean men (and it is usually men) should be allowed to abrogate their parental responsibilities to their children? Because all I'm hearing here is abject whining and a blunt refusal to own our shit.
You want something positive? Stick around for your kids and try and be a positive influence on them, whether or not you still live with, or even get on with, their mother. I can't quite believe I'm having to spell this out. And stop making fucking excuses for men who chose not to.
And the idea that you characterise these issues as 'choices and 'excuses' quite a move.
How do you get knob cheese off the keyboard?
I have no notion of what the norms are for separation agreement, custody, child and spousal support are in the UK, but in the US, despite many many howls from "men's rights" groups who claim exactly what Asher is describing above, study after study has shown that following divorce, women's economic status almost always declines while men's economic status improves (with exceptions of course). It is obviously true that maintaining two households is far more expensive than one (the family home almost always needing to be sold as a result) but in the US anyway, it is generally the woman who is taking the bulk of that hit. Custody is generally shared 50/50 if the husband requests it, yet again, studies show women still generally end up having the kids more often than the man. All of the above is one of the more significant factors in why the rate of children living in poverty is so high in the US.
Again, cross-pond, ymmv.
Most - and I mean most - men who walk away from their families aren't in prison, aren't homeless, aren't addicted and aren't in poverty. Those who are need our compassion and our help. But simply refusing to acknowledge that it is absolutely a manifestation of the toxic masculinity we find in our society that fathers can simply cut them selves off from the life of their children with pretty much zero comeback or accountability is ... wilfully perverse.
You are part of the problem. Try and be part of the solution instead.
(crossposted with cliffdweller)
Thank you. Agreed, most aren't. but addiction, prison and homelessness are predominantly male issues, and impact heavily on male parenting where they do occur.
And maybe I do have issues,
and maybe you only condemned men who walk out.
Wonder why?
Women do also become homeless through relationship breakdown too - says this woman, through gritted teeth, who has been homeless twice for that reason. If men are violent enough the only way to escape is leave, because evicting those men isn't necessarily a safe option.
And homeless is complicated - men are more likely to be seen rough sleeping, but there is a lot of hidden homelessness. And women and kids are often part of that problem.
Nevertheless, whoever is homeless, it is often true that it's closer to us than we think, and that even reasonably able, well-off people can find themselves vulnerable to it through unexpected, uncontrollable circumstances.
Agreed. The profiles of male and female homelessness are different. They have distinct presentations. Homelessness is an issue that impacts terribly on both men and women, in different ways. Like just about all other issues.
Noted. And I too, like others here, have experienced homelessness.
I will plead context - my earlier rant at DocTor referred explicitly to street homeless.
This is really disappointing. I have not in any of my posts 'blamed women' for men's problems. What I have attempted to do is raise some of the issues that impact on men.
I get that there is no willingness to address the real issues I posted up thread:
' sustainable positive changes comes from groups developing common ground'
a plea to develop a 'vision of a non-toxic masculinity that takes into account male identity' and experiences
This thread is a bit like sitting in my school staffroom yesterday:
- 5 women staff and 1 male
- 5 women sharing stories of how shit their (male) partners are
- Male asks if this is helpful
- Told to shut up, 'cos that is their experience
Regards
Asher
There are problems with male homelessness and single male poverty, I wasn't disagreeing with that, but single men were second on the list of those in poverty, which is not what you were saying. The causes of homelessness are a mixture of the high costs of housing, low wages and life events that disrupt the delicate balance that allows most people to cope. Divorce being one of those life events, but illness is as disruptive. And a significantly higher proportion of rough sleepers are ex-prison (40%) or services (7%)¹. The environment of toxic masculinity we all live in means men tend not to seek help for underlying issues and choose to self-medicate with alcohol and drugs. And alcoholism or drug addiction tends to compound anyone's difficulties.
Before you joined this discussion, there had been several comments suggesting that toxic masculinity helps neither men nor women. It is no more helpful for men to be brought up to believe they shouldn't be girls and should manage their own feelings than it does running down women by using language that has most insults for both men and women being feminine.
There are problems in society that encourage male recklessness and their higher prison rates. The services are, very slowly, getting better at supporting their ex-servicemen, but it's something that's been needed for a long time.
¹ 2017 report profiling London's Rough Sleepers (pdf)
Thank you. I joined this discussion before the thread split, and have posts on all three pages.
I have read psychologists who suggest that some of the elements that you locate in toxic masculinity (recklessness, risk taking and lack of self care) are rooted in biological drivers (rather than societally / culturally formed) . If they are right, they it may be that men are, from their mother's wombs, toxic.
The servicemen I knew in prison were all army, largely infantry. The largest majority had pretty serious PTSD.
It's also very difficult to tell when societal influences start - people treat babies differently if they believe they are boys, rather than girls.
This is depressing but not surprising. The armed services (especially the infantry) inculcate physical violence alongside a extreme tribalism. Once cut adrift from this, it would take a very strong character to regain their bearings.
As to your staff room experience, you tried to police a conversation between women and were told to fuck off. I don't see anything wrong there.
You are braver than me here! Commenting on the contribution of mothers to raising toxic sons!
However, the contributions of both biology and nurture are important
It's always edifying when unsure about a protected characteristic to swap it out for another, and test our response. So, how about this:
- 5 men staff and 1 female
- 5 men sharing stories of how shit their (female) partners are
- female asks if this is helpful
- Told to shut up, 'cos that is their experience
What does this change?
Even if the men were talking about last night's match, it's not up to anyone to shit all over that.
People are allowed to talk about stuff. (I worked in a primary school for 8 years. I was one of 3 male staff members. I heard all manner of things and managed not to tell anyone that they couldn't discuss their domestic arrangements with their colleagues even once. Honestly, it wasn't difficult.)
What women choose to share with one another about their personal lives is none of your business. I doubt they were 'shitting on men'. It is more likely that they were talking about how to deal with abusive partners or how to demand more equity in sharing household tasks at home.
One of the defining characteristics of toxic masculinity is for me what you are doing here by describing interactions between men and women as essentially competitive and not co-operative. A male staff member trusted enough to listen in to a conversation like this, would have said very little and probably have learned a great deal. I get the feeling you were eavesdropping and looking for a way to defend the indefensible, so that you could butt into the conversation and 'show them up'.