Role models needed.

[Sarnia Cherie]

I haven't always been Gareth Southgate's biggest fan but the theme of his Richard Dimbleby lecture was very relevant.

Adolescence, the current drama on Netflix, shows in graphic detail how a family's life is destroyed when their 13 year old son is arrested for murder. This isn't the stereotypical, dysfunctional family on a feral council estate. This centres around decent, hard-working parents just trying to do their very best with a son doing well at school. It is a sobering watch and it shocks because it truly could happen to anyone with young boys and men in their family. 

Gareth Southgate didn't pull any punches when he said that in today's society these young males have no role models. Nobody to look up to and admire. Nobody to inspire them. Instead they have toxic influencers like the Tate brothers filling their impressionable minds and grooming them at a vital stage of their development with their opinions on women. 

If that is the future for our teenage boys and young men then heaven help us all.

Who would you choose as a role model for the young men in your lives?

 

Edited Thursday at 08:27 by Sarnia Cherie
Wanted to add another sentence.

[egg]

1 hour ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

I haven't always been Gareth Southgate's biggest fan but the theme of his Richard Dimbleby lecture was very relevant.

Adolescence, the current drama on Netflix, shows in graphic detail how a family's life is destroyed when their 13 year old son is arrested for murder. This isn't the stereotypical, dysfunctional family on a feral council estate. This centres around decent, hard-working parents just trying to do their very best with a son doing well at school. It is a sobering watch and it shocks because it truly could happen to anyone with young boys and men in their family. 

Gareth Southgate didn't pull any punches when he said that in today's society these young males have no role models. Nobody to look up to and admire. Nobody to inspire them. Instead they have toxic influencers like the Tate brothers filling their impressionable minds and grooming them at a vital stage of their development with their opinions on women. 

If that is the future for our teenage boys and young men then heaven help us all.

Who would you choose as a role model for the young men in your lives?

 

It should start with their father. 

[whelk]

Richard Osman

[Sarnia Cherie]

14 minutes ago, egg said:

It should start with their father. 

Agreed. The father in Adolescence thought everything was fine as his son spent a lot of time in his room. He knew where his son was, so that was good in his mind. In reality nothing could have been further from the truth. Life today with social media is a huge learning curve for parents. 

[TheAlehouseBrawlers]

When you’re young you don’t really get the fear your parents seem to hold of the pitfalls of everyday life but you certainly get once you become parents yourself.

I’ve got grandkids now and it concerns me greatly how this world is going and the future looks a bit ominous at times with so many nutcases running around. I guess you just notice it more as you age.

[whelk]

8 minutes ago, TheAlehouseBrawlers said:

When you’re young you don’t really get the fear your parents seem to hold of the pitfalls of everyday life but you certainly get once you become parents yourself.

I’ve got grandkids now and it concerns me greatly how this world is going and the future looks a bit ominous at times with so many nutcases running around. I guess you just notice it more as you age.

World has always been dangerous but think everyone wants to know what’s going on now with their kids. We used to go out for day and get home for tea and parents didn’t know what we were getting up to. Depends where you live I guess but always been people who think and worry about the worst happening. 

[TheAlehouseBrawlers]

1 hour ago, whelk said:

World has always been dangerous but think everyone wants to know what’s going on now with their kids. We used to go out for day and get home for tea and parents didn’t know what we were getting up to. Depends where you live I guess but always been people who think and worry about the worst happening. 

Yeah, agreed, spent a lot of my childhood growing up around Shirley/Shirley Warren in the 60s and there was certainly plenty of wrong’uns around back then.

Just now understand the dangers the olds could see back then, when we couldn’t, seems worse with the graphic coverage everything gets these days.

Edited Thursday at 11:38 by TheAlehouseBrawlers

[hypochondriac]

Wasn't a huge fan of that show to be honest. Just another way of calling young working class white men bad and dangerous. Parents need to take more responsibility in general for their children, instead the state increasingly does more of the parenting on behalf of the parents. 

Regarding boys feeling unloved and angry at the world, I think being kinder to these types of people will help. Messaging that portrays them as wrong for being who they are or shoving them into feminised spaces where their natural instincts are suppressed and where they are told that success is to sit still, be compliant and studious is a big part of the problem. 

Edited Thursday at 11:54 by hypochondriac

[whelk]

11 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Wasn't a huge fan of that show to be honest. Just another way of calling young working class white men bad and dangerous. Parents need to take more responsibility in general for their children, instead the state increasingly does more of the parenting on behalf of the parents. 

Regarding boys feeling unloved and angry at the world, I think being kinder to these types of people will help. Messaging that portrays them as wrong for being who they are or shoving them into feminised spaces where their natural instincts are suppressed and where they are told that success is to sit still, be compliant and studious is a big part of the problem. 

Social media has definitely made people more shouty and helped polarise beliefs on both sides rather than encouraging any tolerance or acceptance.
I’m not sure what the state is doing in terms of doing what role of parents but do agree that there needs to be an understanding of what is to be a man for want of a better phrase. It isn’t being some drip who gets bossed by his missus. They want a protector in my experience. See James Dutton in 1883

[Jeremy Corbyn]

His speech was great and adolescence was great, both highlighting that we have a significant issue around toxicity and social disconnection amongst young men and boys (and women and girls, but it's more a male thing). 

Seems like a lot of people didn't like adolescence because the social media accounts they follow have told them the kid was the wrong colour (even though the overwhelming trend towards this sort of violence is age and gender which were both cast accurately).

But anyway, we live in a society where socially things have changed dramatically over the last 40 years and for a wide number of factors, it's now significantly more difficult for young men to have a reasonable level of self esteem.  Low self esteem is driving endorphin chasing (internet, social media that plays into your anger etc.) and unwillingness to take changes to improve things (disconnection from society, not going for jobs etc.).  These combined are creating a large number (millions) of disenfranchised and angry young men - not all, or many, will go on to commit violence, but statistically it's going to lead to a significant rise as we've seen.  But it's just about violence, the number of young people, especially male, who just have shit lives is frightening.

Gareth made a lot of good points and good role models are important.  But imo, I this is an area where there has to be widespread intervention.  People have mentioned "fathers", but that wont help with young men who live in a world their fathers wont have any empathy for - might even make it worse.

The real steps imo are things like banning social media for u16s, investing in youth programs to engage young people in communities, engaging with young people beyond 18 to support them in a better life, changing the way we teach children about society so it's less about success and more about being a good person (this is a key point of Gareth's).

But that all takes time and money and we've turned into a country of selfish cunts over the last decade so it wont happen and we'll keep throwing sticky plasters at things.

 

[sadoldgit]

8 hours ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Agreed. The father in Adolescence thought everything was fine as his son spent a lot of time in his room. He knew where his son was, so that was good in his mind. In reality nothing could have been further from the truth. Life today with social media is a huge learning curve for parents. 

This is the issue. Once upon a time you might be worried about your child’s peer group, but with social media it is not just the local peer group you need to worry about.  It is quite scary how close children are to disturbing influences and images online.

[SotonianWill]

10 hours ago, Sarnia Cherie said:

Instead they have toxic influencers like the Tate brothers filling their impressionable minds and grooming them at a vital stage of their development with their opinions on women. 

The problem doesn't start with the likes of Andrew Tate / toxic influencers, but it does come from the before stage: a percieved hatred of young men which leads them to watching this content. The Tates and their ilk come from what is called the red pill - essentially the get to the gym and get your game up type for people who are depressed to start with. Therefore, replacing Tate with a liberal lovey and continuing to spread the word that men do bad things, whilst helpful for awareness, is going to continue the cycle until you reach the actually roots.

This siege mentality can then lead to a blaming of feminism or other forms based on women. Young men feel as though they're being told daily that they are evil.

 

Toxic masculinity rolemodels are models of a man to the extreme (hence why it may fool some). If, instead of being taught that masculinity in any form is bad and that men are evil, schools taught that masculinity is at least acceptable, they could do the teaching earlier to a moderate degree - not the toxicly masculine reactionary. I'll add to this that parents should be doing this, but, trust me, the anti-male bollox in the schools pushing people to this far outweights one of two conversations with ones parents.

Edited Thursday at 18:54 by SotonianWill

[hypochondriac]

When you see shit like this it's hard to not be extremely cynical and think this was the plan all along. The nudge unit in full swing

[egg]

18 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

When you see shit like this it's hard to not be extremely cynical and think this was the plan all along. The nudge unit in full swing

What's your objection to something prompting a discussion that's necessary? Unless you're saying that there's no discussion to be had? 

[Turkish]

This is what happens when you create a society where masculinity is demonised and traditional family structure and moral values are considered outdated.

 

 

[hypochondriac]

32 minutes ago, egg said:

What's your objection to something prompting a discussion that's necessary? Unless you're saying that there's no discussion to be had? 

My objection is using a fictional drama in order to promote Internet censorship that the government wanted to implement anyway as well as inviting adult pretenders to assist in formulating policy as if they are experts in the subject. I have a similar objection when victims of crime are asked to do the same thing for the same reasons. 

[egg]

1 minute ago, Turkish said:

This is what happens when you create a society where masculinity is demonised and traditional family structure and moral values are considered outdated.

 

 

What I'm not seeing is mention of who these positive role models should be.  Lots of who it shouldn't be though. I had my father, football coaches, cub/scout leaders, teachers who gave it straight, neighbours who weren't afraid to pull you up when you were out of line, bosses (I started working when at school), and others. My peers had similar, so there was a degree of peer policing. We were little shits at times, in fact often but we knew where the line was and didn't cross it. 

[Turkish]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

My objection is using a fictional drama in order to promote Internet censorship that the government wanted to implement anyway as well as inviting adult pretenders to assist in formulating policy as if they are experts in the subject. I have a similar objection when victims of crime are asked to do the same thing for the same reasons. 

It’s what they do Hypo. It’s all controlled and they manipulate the media, entertainment and social media to condition people how they want. 

[egg]

Just now, hypochondriac said:

My objection is using a fictional drama in order to promote Internet censorship that the government wanted to implement anyway as well as inviting adult pretenders to assist in formulating policy as if they are experts in the subject. I have a similar objection when victims of crime are asked to do the same thing for the same reasons. 

I'm not sure who's pretending to be experts. Do you agree that there needs to be discussion leading to action? Assuming you do, why can't something high profile be used to kick start it? Seems a good thing to me. 

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

It’s what they do Hypo. It’s all controlled and they manipulate the media, entertainment and social media to condition people how they want. 

A different perspective on that is they've made something relevant, sparked a necessary debate, and want to use the opportunity for wider discussion, and hopefully make necessary changes.

The "condition people" part I keep hearing, and nobody seems able to credibly explain what they actually mean and how they actually feel it's happening.

The cruel irony to that statement is that it overlooks that the conditioning in this context is from the influencers in vulnerable kids, and doesn't address how we address that. 

[Turkish]

6 minutes ago, egg said:

What I'm not seeing is mention of who these positive role models should be.  Lots of who it shouldn't be though. I had my father, football coaches, cub/scout leaders, teachers who gave it straight, neighbours who weren't afraid to pull you up when you were out of line, bosses (I started working when at school), and others. My peers had similar, so there was a degree of peer policing. We were little shits at times, in fact often but we knew where the line was and didn't cross it. 

Same for me and I like to think I do the same with my son and also the kids I coach at football. They have boundaries and know any bad behaviour won’t be tolerated. 
 

I agree with you it starts with the parents and then there are teachers coaches and adults around who kids can look up to. It’s inspiring, for example hearing stories like Ian Wright when he talks about the guy who was a massive influence on him when he was a kid 

 

Unfortunately a lot of parents these days are too busy working to spend any quality time with their kids, not necessarily their fault as cost of living means the days on being able to survive on one wage are long gone. Teachers have no power to discipline any more and as a football coach if you upset any of the precious kids for being out of line to end up dealing with angry parents. Not a problem we have in our current team as we set the standards high but in the last tell one of them off and you’ll be dealing with the fall out for weeks.

[egg]

7 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Same for me and I like to think I do the same with my son and also the kids I coach at football. They have boundaries and know any bad behaviour won’t be tolerated. 
 

I agree with you it starts with the parents and then there are teachers coaches and adults around who kids can look up to. It’s inspiring, for example hearing stories like Ian Wright when he talks about the guy who was a massive influence on him when he was a kid 

 

Unfortunately a lot of parents these days are too busy working to spend any quality time with their kids, not necessarily their fault as cost of living means the days on being able to survive on one wage are long gone. Teachers have no power to discipline any more and as a football coach if you upset any of the precious kids for being out of line to end up dealing with angry parents. Not a problem we have in our current team as we set the standards high but in the last tell one of them off and you’ll be dealing with the fall out for weeks.

I wonder how many kids go to football training now compared to back then, ditto cubs, boys brigade, boxing clubs, or whatever. I'd guess it's a hell of a lot less. 

The lack of power to discipline point is correct, but it goes deeper than that. The kids don't accept discipline, and in fact don't feel that they should be disciplined. Why? What's influencing them to think that way? That's why debate is needed. 

[whelk]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

I wonder how many kids go to football training now compared to back then, ditto cubs, boys brigade, boxing clubs, or whatever. I'd guess it's a hell of a lot less. 

The lack of power to discipline point is correct, but it goes deeper than that. The kids don't accept discipline, and in fact don't feel that they should be disciplined. Why? What's influencing them to think that way? That's why debate is needed. 

On the surface it manifests as if they don’t want discipline but most actually would welcome it and deep down crave it, well order, but just aren’t used to it. We have systems that don’t allow it and as others said many don’t seem to see their pathway in society - especially less educated males. Having said that it is easy to paint the young as feral whereas my experience from my children’s friends are they are good kids, polite and respectful. Imagine massively different on a London estate though 

[hypochondriac]

43 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not sure who's pretending to be experts. Do you agree that there needs to be discussion leading to action? Assuming you do, why can't something high profile be used to kick start it? Seems a good thing to me. 

What discussion needs to be had and what action is being proposed? The mood music I have seen so far is about age verification for social media and eventually having a digital ID for Internet access which is an appaling idea. A wider conversation about not demonising masculinity, about removing a culture that sees white working class boys in particular as inherently evil or a problem that need to be fixed, removing the idea that men not being able to cry is the biggest problem and that if only men could sit around and discuss their feelings at every opportunity that will lead to the solution. Idw like a discussion about how ridiculous it is that schools are now having to potty train children, teach them to speak and now giving them breakfast, lunch and dinner as well as teaching them how to behave with the role of the parent effectively reduced in almost every circumstance. 

Those conversations aren't the ones the government wants to have though, they want to shove a well acted drama about 'toxic masculinity' in your faces saying that young white boys are the major problem and then use that drama to further their agenda for Internet censorship, further control of lives, more stories of young boys being evil, more misandy simply for existing, no talk of how schools are setup to penalise boys and how feminised society is now in general which disadvantages young males for all sorts of reasons. That's why I object to this because the government has no interest in the actual conversation that they should have. 

[whelk]

1 minute ago, hypochondriac said:

What discussion needs to be had and what action is being proposed? The mood music I have seen so far is about age verification for social media and eventually having a digital ID for Internet access which is an appaling idea. A wider conversation about not demonising masculinity, about removing a culture that sees white working class boys in particular as inherently evil or a problem that need to be fixed, removing the idea that men not being able to cry is the biggest problem and that if only men could sit around and discuss their feelings at every opportunity that will lead to the solution. Idw like a discussion about how ridiculous it is that schools are now having to potty train children, teach them to speak and now giving them breakfast, lunch and dinner as well as teaching them how to behave with the role of the parent effectively reduced in almost every circumstance. 

Those conversations aren't the ones the government wants to have though, they want to shove a well acted drama about 'toxic masculinity' in your faces saying that young white boys are the major problem and then use that drama to further their agenda for Internet censorship, further control of lives, more stories of young boys being evil, more misandy simply for existing, no talk of how schools are setup to penalise boys and how feminised society is now in general which disadvantages young males for all sorts of reasons. That's why I object to this because the government has no interest in the actual conversation that they should have. 

You get yourself worked up about weird things. Sounds like you are angry at any discussion unless it embraces Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson view on society. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, whelk said:

You get yourself worked up about weird things. Sounds like you are angry at any discussion unless it embraces Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson view on society. 

I've never seen a piece of Andrew tate content in my life and he seems like a complete piece of shit. My opinions are formed by personal experience as well as working in schools for a number of years. It's hard not to get worked up when you see so many young boys in particular being let down by society and written off almost before their life has started. I don't think that's a weird thing to get worked up about at all. 

[Turkish]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

I wonder how many kids go to football training now compared to back then, ditto cubs, boys brigade, boxing clubs, or whatever. I'd guess it's a hell of a lot less. 

The lack of power to discipline point is correct, but it goes deeper than that. The kids don't accept discipline, and in fact don't feel that they should be disciplined. Why? What's influencing them to think that way? That's why debate is needed. 

I think you'd be surprised, i cant speak for other sports but football the club we are at has 3 teams at most age groups up until U15s, then one or two up to U18s. We have 3 leagues in our age group with 9 or 10 teams per league so in a relatively small town you've got about 400 or so kids just at U12 age playing on a sunday, expand that from U7s up to U15s and it'll be thousands. We also do two other sessions mid week which both are full with about 50 kids per session, again they do age groups from U7s up to U16s i'd say it's more now than ever and the standard is way higher than when i was the same age. But as i mentioned whilst we have strict boundries, other teams dont, i've seen 10-11 year old kids chasing the referee calling him a wanker and a cheat, telling parents of the other team to f*ck off whilst the coaches and parents join in rather than telling the little shits to wind their neck in. 

As for discipline again it goes back to the parents, they dont accept it because they aren't used to it. Parents seem different these days, rather than when we were young you were told to respect your elders, parents on our estate were allowed to tell me off so were friends parents. Now i swear parents think their kids are gods and cant do anything wrong. Even a friend of ours is a teacher when we told her something her son had done she refused to believe he done anything.

[hypochondriac]

34 minutes ago, egg said:

I wonder how many kids go to football training now compared to back then, ditto cubs, boys brigade, boxing clubs, or whatever. I'd guess it's a hell of a lot less. 

The lack of power to discipline point is correct, but it goes deeper than that. The kids don't accept discipline, and in fact don't feel that they should be disciplined. Why? What's influencing them to think that way? That's why debate is needed. 

If you're Interested in a lack of discipline, I expect you'd be interested in early years and the concept of restrictive practice. Essentially teachers and carers are advised they are unable to make someone do something they have not given their consent to do. This extends as far as babies being given cards which they hand to their carer to give their consent to have their nappy changed. This policy extends to older age groups as well and then people wonder why children act like untouchable emporers where no one can tell them what to do. 

[egg]

4 minutes ago, whelk said:

You get yourself worked up about weird things. Sounds like you are angry at any discussion unless it embraces Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson view on society. 

Thanks. Saved me replying to that nonsense. 

[hypochondriac]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Thanks. Saved me replying to that nonsense. 

Worth pointing out this post when you accuse others of not engaging respectfully. Disappointing that you resort to this sort of thing again. 

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I've never seen a piece of Andrew tate content in my life and he seems like a complete piece of shit. My opinions are formed by personal experience as well as working in schools for a number of years. It's hard not to get worked up when you see so many young boys in particular being let down by society and written off almost before their life has started. I don't think that's a weird thing to get worked up about at all. 

The weird thing was getting annoyed about the discussion. I agree with some of your views but it isn’t a bogeyman controlling society it is evolving views that have gone too far IMO. You sound increasingly alarmist about government control of lives and using outlying examples as if kids are being routinely nappy trained in schools. The government are not trying to control your lives. 

[egg]

11 minutes ago, Turkish said:

I think you'd be surprised, i cant speak for other sports but football the club we are at has 3 teams at most age groups up until U15s, then one or two up to U18s. We have 3 leagues in our age group with 9 or 10 teams per league so in a relatively small town you've got about 400 or so kids just at U12 age playing on a sunday, expand that from U7s up to U15s and it'll be thousands. We also do two other sessions mid week which both are full with about 50 kids per session, again they do age groups from U7s up to U16s i'd say it's more now than ever and the standard is way higher than when i was the same age. But as i mentioned whilst we have strict boundries, other teams dont, i've seen 10-11 year old kids chasing the referee calling him a wanker and a cheat, telling parents of the other team to f*ck off whilst the coaches and parents join in rather than telling the little shits to wind their neck in. 

As for discipline again it goes back to the parents, they dont accept it because they aren't used to it. Parents seem different these days, rather than when we were young you were told to respect your elders, parents on our estate were allowed to tell me off so were friends parents. Now i swear parents think their kids are gods and cant do anything wrong. Even a friend of ours is a teacher when we told her something her son had done she refused to believe he done anything.

We've got similar backgrounds, and I'm grateful for the fact that I was kept on the straight and narrow. Whelk's point about kids wanting and sometimes craving discipline is a good one, and I can relate to that. For me it's evident that there's a serious issue to address, and what worries me is that you, Hypo, and doubtless others on here, think that there's some kind of media or government thought control at play. How can we make progress without discussion, and with a perception of us all being controlled, for reasons I cannot fathom? 

[hypochondriac]

21 minutes ago, egg said:

We've got similar backgrounds, and I'm grateful for the fact that I was kept on the straight and narrow. Whelk's point about kids wanting and sometimes craving discipline is a good one, and I can relate to that. For me it's evident that there's a serious issue to address, and what worries me is that you, Hypo, and doubtless others on here, think that there's some kind of media or government thought control at play. How can we make progress without discussion, and with a perception of us all being controlled, for reasons I cannot fathom? 

I think there is obviously limits on government control and I don't subscribe to extreme examples and conspiracy theories but if you don't think there isn't an effort to exert a level of control on the public then I would suggest you are the one who should be worrying people. Do you deny the existence of the government's nudge unit? 

[Turkish]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

We've got similar backgrounds, and I'm grateful for the fact that I was kept on the straight and narrow. Whelk's point about kids wanting and sometimes craving discipline is a good one, and I can relate to that. For me it's evident that there's a serious issue to address, and what worries me is that you, Hypo, and doubtless others on here, think that there's some kind of media or government thought control at play. How can we make progress without discussion, and with a perception of us all being controlled, for reasons I cannot fathom? 

Clearly there is. The media and government will control the narrative they want at that time, im surprised anyone would think otherwise. On the one hand we've got people up in arms about the influence bellends like Andrew Tate have yet at the same time dont see there is a narrative from media they want to force. Im not specifically talking about discipline here but more generally.  I'll probably get criticised for this example by certain people but take the BLM stuff, it was drummed into everyone they had to support it, bad if you didn't. If you dont agree with taking the knee you were made to feel like you were racist or there was something wrong with you. Same with Brexit, vote to remain good person, vote to leave thick racist. 

[hypochondriac]

30 minutes ago, whelk said:

The weird thing was getting annoyed about the discussion. I agree with some of your views but it isn’t a bogeyman controlling society it is evolving views that have gone too far IMO. You sound increasingly alarmist about government control of lives and using outlying examples as if kids are being routinely nappy trained in schools. The government are not trying to control your lives. 

I just think if I'm looking to formulate government policy, the very last people I'd be listening to would be actors and victims of crime. They have no more authority on a subject than any other random member of the public. I am fully aware of government incompetence and the limits on control, particularly because I was on a government advisory panel a few years ago so know how they are constrained but if you think there are parts of the government that don't view the rise of technology and particularly AI as opportunities for a greater level of control then you're just wrong. 

[hypochondriac]

Just now, Turkish said:

Clearly there is. The media and government will control the narrative they want at that time, im surprised anyone would think otherwise. On the one hand we've got people up in arms about the influence bellends like Andrew Tate have yet at the same time dont see there is a narrative from media they want to force. Im not specifically talking about discipline here but more generally.  I'll probably get criticised for this example by certain people but take the BLM stuff, it was drummed into everyone they had to support it, bad if you didn't. If you dont agree with taking the knee you were made to feel like you were racist or there was something wrong with you. Same with Brexit, vote to remain good person, vote to leave thick racist. 

Don't look back in anger, coordinated social media posts, photo opportunities for particular groups in the aftermath of an atrocity, withholding information from the public in order to shape a narrative, newspaper headlines all carrying the same message across multiple platforms. Again, these tactics have a limit and I'm not subscribing to some grand conspiracy theory but clearly there is an attempt to shape public behaviour in a way deemed preferable by those in charge. That includes narratives around toxic masculinity and demonising male behaviour. 

[egg]

22 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I think there is obviously limits on government control and I don't subscribe to extreme examples and conspiracy theories but if you don't think there isn't an effort to exert a level of control on the public then I would suggest you are the one who should be worrying people. Do you deny the existence of the government's nudge unit? 

I'm not getting into a conspiracy theory discussion. On this subject, this programme and Southgate have sparked a discussion. There's zero point discussing that with you as you've questioned what there is to discuss. That much should be obvious. 

[egg]

23 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Clearly there is. The media and government will control the narrative they want at that time, im surprised anyone would think otherwise. On the one hand we've got people up in arms about the influence bellends like Andrew Tate have yet at the same time dont see there is a narrative from media they want to force. Im not specifically talking about discipline here but more generally.  I'll probably get criticised for this example by certain people but take the BLM stuff, it was drummed into everyone they had to support it, bad if you didn't. If you dont agree with taking the knee you were made to feel like you were racist or there was something wrong with you. Same with Brexit, vote to remain good person, vote to leave thick racist. 

I want to stay on topic. On this issue, where is the media 'control' over and above (and it's a stretch for me) contriving a discussion by making a hard hitting TV programme? Where's the government control on this issue? 

[hypochondriac]

39 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not getting into a conspiracy theory discussion. On this subject, this programme and Southgate have sparked a discussion. There's zero point discussing that with you as you've questioned what there is to discuss. That much should be obvious. 

I didn't question what there is to discuss did I. I mentioned a whole list of things they should be discussing. I haven't talked about conspiracy theories other than to say that largely I don't subscribe to them.the government nudge unit is not a conspiracy. 

[egg]

17 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I didn't question what there is to discuss did I. I mentioned a whole list of things they should be discussing. I haven't talked about conspiracy theories other than to say that largely I don't subscribe to them.the government nudge unit is not a conspiracy. 

Your post was contradictory, you started with 'What discussion needs to be had' then raised issues as you saw them, and then concluded by saying 'That's why I object to this ( a discussion I presume) because the government has no interest in the actual conversation that they should have'.

There is a problem. There needs to be change. There needs to be discussion and consideration to understand what needs to be changed, and how that can be achieved. 

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

Your post was contradictory, you started with 'What discussion needs to be had' then raised issues as you saw them, and then concluded by saying 'That's why I object to this ( a discussion I presume) because the government has no interest in the actual conversation that they should have'.

There is a problem. There needs to be change. There needs to be discussion and consideration to understand what needs to be changed, and how that can be achieved. 

Having a discussion that looks at the completely wrong things and therefore has the wrong conclusions is not only the wrong thing to do but actively harmful. It would be akin to looking at the problem of men raping women and then starting a discussion about how we can stop women dressing in slutty clothing and then someone praising the government because there is a problem and they are having a discussion. 

[egg]

9 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Having a discussion that looks at the completely wrong things and therefore has the wrong conclusions is not only the wrong thing to do but actively harmful. It would be akin to looking at the problem of men raping women and then starting a discussion about how we can stop women dressing in slutty clothing and then someone praising the government because there is a problem and they are having a discussion. 

I oh see, so there's only a need for a discussion if it's your agenda. Thanks for clarifying. 

[rallyboy]

Did I miss the memo about masculinity being officially demonised?

Sounds like one of those mad claims from the failed drama queen Lawrence Fox.

And on the subject of taking the knee to show solidarity in the fight against racism and discrimination, a fairly mainstream cause I think, if you support racism and discrimination you can stand quietly and tut to yourself, but to boo or chant in favour of racism and discrimination is quite an extreme use of free speech that comes with consequences. 

As for Brexit, not all Remain voters are good, not all Leave voters are racist and thick.

But it's very clear that most racists voted for Leave and many voters didn't grasp the detail, misunderstood what would happen, and voted themselves out of work and into poverty - which some might consider qualifies those voters as a bit dim.

 

 

 

[east-stand-nic]

2 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Worth pointing out this post when you accuse others of not engaging respectfully. Disappointing that you resort to this sort of thing again. 

I have been pointing this out for ages, so many hypocrites on here. Typical lefties, 'do as i say, not as I do' attitude. They are always quick to jump on others for doing what they do daily.

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, egg said:

I oh see, so there's only a need for a discussion if it's your agenda. Thanks for clarifying. 

It would help if authorities ever entertained a discussion about some of the ideas I spoke about. The only thing they want to discuss is men being more like women, schools becoming more and more like social workers whilst parents abdicate their responsibilities and further censoring of the Internet with possible Internet IDs and all the problems that causes. I don't think there's a need for any of those discussions quite frankly because it's trying to stick a big plaster on the problem which is why people feel like this in the first place. 

Who is even proposing to start a discussion about how society treats some boys and how they are being marginalised and pushed into situations that they shouldn't be in?

The likes of Andrew Tate are popular because some boys have heard the narrative about them being useless, not mattering and are told that they aren't valued by a lot of society at large and also frankly by some parental figures and people in authority. Southgate is right that there should be positive role models but first there needs to be an examination of the causes for why young boys feel the way they do and who could be causing that. A lot of the time it isn't the boys themselves. 

Edited Friday at 12:39 by hypochondriac

[whelk]

45 minutes ago, east-stand-nic said:

I have been pointing this out for ages, so many hypocrites on here. Typical lefties, 'do as i say, not as I do' attitude. They are always quick to jump on others for doing what they do daily.

Fucking droning on boring cunt. Typical racist

[hypochondriac]

24 minutes ago, whelk said:

Fucking droning on boring cunt. Typical racist

I'm quite fond of a tdmickey3 laughing emoji on many of my posts but when I get a nic heart I have to shake my head unfortunately. 

[whelk]

5 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm quite fond of a tdmickey3 laughing emoji on many of my posts but when I get a nic heart I have to shake my head unfortunately. 

Not sure I have ever received one from Nic. Many laughing ones though. I just assume a sad old man discovering something the youngsters use and then over using it to the point of tedium. Such a great contributor bleating about the unfairness of it all and boasting that he outwits people has even lost it’s amusement.

[tdmickey3]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I'm quite fond of a tdmickey3 laughing emoji on many of my posts but when I get a nic heart I have to shake my head unfortunately. 

You are welcome 😉

LooNic just wants to make friends (bless) and sees you as one, mainly because of your exchanges with SOG

Edited Friday at 13:48 by tdmickey3

[sadoldgit]

Coincidentally I have just finished reading “How Not To Be A Boy” by Robert Webb which deals with not just toxic masculinity but the given idea of masculinity in general. He makes the very valid point that boys are not born with this notion of masculinity of what it is to “be a man”. It is something that we and our society teach them from the time they are born.

I’m not suggesting for one minute  that sex offender  Donald Trump is a role model, but when kind of example does it set young boys when they see the most powerful man on the planet displaying such blatant misogyny and disregard for women and, on a daily basis, makes out that machismo is the way forward and might is right.

As Webb points out, people are people and gender should make no difference to the way that we treat others. There are plenty of people who criticise people like Andrew Tate on one hand yet still refer to women as “bikes” if they are sexually promiscuous.

Not only are we now seeing more young men who believe that girls and women are their for their own sexual gratification, they also now think it is perfectly ok to carry knives and, on regular occasions, stab other people with them.

Our current King and Queen are adulterers as are two of our recent PMs. Professional footballers appear on the front pages of the tabloids charged with rape with boring regularity.The father of the worlds richest man impregnated his own stepdaughter and his son has 13 children by several different woman already. The scumbags get the headlines while the decent people, and there still are some, get relegated to the back pages because being decent (or woke) is becoming a negative. 

Sad times.
 

Edited yesterday at 09:42 by sadoldgit