Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is there any validity in the "Men's Movement"?

To a degree, yes, but I don't accept that malnutrition is a social construct.
Malnutrition clearly manifests differently in different cultures. In the West in manifests more in things like obesity, metabolic syndrome etc.
 
Of course it depends on individual factors, it's not a direct relationship. Bit the link is there and the evidence is there.

The evidence that I've seen (so far) is riddled with confounding factors. I'm not a fan of inequality myself, but some (many?) people seem to interpret it as a kind of stagnation.
 
The evidence that I've seen (so far) is riddled with confounding factors. I'm not a fan of inequality myself, but some (many?) people seem to interpret it as a kind of stagnation.

Then there's the clinical evidence. Work in a mental health team and this stuff becomes obvious.

Poorer areas have more mental health problems. That's not in dispute.
 
Malnutrition clearly manifests differently in different cultures. In the West in manifests more in things like obesity, metabolic syndrome etc.

I think if nothing is lacking in the diet and it is just too many calories, then that is rather re-defining what 'malnutrition' means.

I'd agree that in the West, people can certainly be obese and lacking essential nutrients.
 
I read some reports last year suggesting hallucinations, especially auditory, were far more common than previously supposed among people with no other signs of illness leading perfectly normal well-adjusted lives. I guess it's the knowing where they're coming from that marks the chief difference. The voices I get when nodding off are always saying extremely banal things.
I read some reports last year suggesting hallucinations, especially auditory, were far more common than previously supposed among people with no other signs of illness leading perfectly normal well-adjusted lives. I guess it's the knowing where they're coming from that marks the chief difference. The voices I get when nodding off are always saying extremely banal things.

It is very common in young children. It is shown to be more frequent with children in the countryside than in cities.

Experiments have claimed that schizophrenic voices are subvocalizations of the subject reporting them but if they're subvocalizing what if they're reacting to what they're hearing, or could they even hear others' subvocals at times?
 
Then there's the clinical evidence. Work in a mental health team and this stuff becomes obvious.

Poorer areas have more mental health problems. That's not in dispute.

I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing whether inequality in itself was a root cause. By which I mean, if everyone, from the poorest to the richest, had 10 times as much cash and the price of goods remained the same, would the incidence of mental health problems remain the same?
 
I think if nothing is lacking in the diet and it is just too many calories, then that is rather re-defining what 'malnutrition' means.

I'd agree that in the West, people can certainly be obese and lacking essential nutrients.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Malnutrition/Pages/Introduction.aspx

Malnutrition is a serious condition that occurs when a person’s diet does not contain the right amount of nutrients.

It means "poor nutrition" and can refer to:

  • undernutrition – when you don't get enough nutrients
  • overnutrition – when you get more nutrients than you need
 
I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing whether inequality in itself was a root cause. By which I mean, if everyone, from the poorest to the richest, had 10 times as much cash and the price of goods remained the same, would the incidence of mental health problems remain the same?

Yes, because wealth is a social phenomena.
 
Yes, because wealth is a social phenomena.

So we could change our society and all be filthy rich?

edit: obviously to some extent, property rights and therefore ownership etc. lead to wealth being a social phenomenon, but that doesn't change the degree of how fucked you are when there are only rocks to eat
 
Last edited:
Is there any need for men ( as men ) to discuss issues to do with gender , sexuality , sexism , patriarchy ?
.......or are men all sorted and leave those kind of issues to women ??
 
Is there any need for men ( as men ) to discuss issues to do with gender , sexuality , sexism , patriarchy ?
.......or are men all sorted and leave those kind of issues to women ??

I think there's certainly a need for men, as men, to discuss these issues, but I don't think there's a need for us to discuss them in an all-male context.

I also think it's useful for women to discuss these issues in a mixed gender context, as indeed they do, but I can still see (and respect, even if I personally don't necessarily agree) why some might sometimes wish to do so in an all-female context.
 
I think there's certainly a need for men, as men, to discuss these issues, but I don't think there's a need for us to discuss them in an all-male context.
I also think it's useful for women to discuss these issues in a mixed gender context, as indeed they do, but I can still see (and respect, even if I personally don't necessarily agree) why some might sometimes wish to do so in an all-female context.

I don't disagree....... but :)

Most of the advances in understanding issues relating to gender and sexuality have come from feminist women , and some gay-identified men.
Women have generally done this , understandably imo , in women only forums.
Many , if not most , of the problems associated with gender and sexuality come from the ideologies and practices of conventional heterosexual masculinities.

So.... how are straight-identified men going to address these issues - without relying exclusively on women and gay-identified men ?
 
This is the whole point
I don't disagree....... but :)

Many , if not most , of the problems associated with gender and sexuality come from the ideologies and practices of conventional heterosexual masculinities.

So.... how are straight-identified men going to address these issues - without relying exclusively on women and gay-identified men ?

This is what the men's movement should be about pointing out being a heterosexual male is not problem.
 
Unfortunatly most of the men in the mens movement are either unspeakably wet either because changing a nappy makes them understand caring or their standing around a fire in a wood in the rain:(
or one step away from being arrested for rape:facepalm:
 
This is the whole point


This is what the men's movement should be about pointing out being a heterosexual male is not problem.

mmmmm.....?
I'm not sure why you say - " pointing out being a heterosexual male is not a problem " ?
IF it was in response to my post , what I said was -

"....the ideologies and practices of conventional heterosexual masculinities."

- which , imo , is a problem - or even in this context THE major problem , particularly for straight-identified men to deal with themselves
 
Absolute poverty, yes. In terms of inequality by itself (ie. just some people having a lot more than others, rather than some people being grindingly poor), well I can see how it might but I've not personally seen all that much in the way of evidence. I think it may depend to a large degree on the individual - I used to work in a job where people were, in that particular department, paid near-as-dammit identically. I was quite happy with the arrangement but on the whole they seemed much happier when the opportunity came along for certain individuals to make significantly more.

The Spirit Level shows the detrimental effects on health, mental and physical, of inequality. I haven't read it for a while and I'm not going to look in the references right now but it's about inequality and not poverty.
 
I don't disagree....... but :)

Most of the advances in understanding issues relating to gender and sexuality have come from feminist women , and some gay-identified men.
Women have generally done this , understandably imo , in women only forums.
Many , if not most , of the problems associated with gender and sexuality come from the ideologies and practices of conventional heterosexual masculinities.

Yeah I'd agree that it has really only been about conscious raising by feminists that these issues have been brought to wider attention.

So.... how are straight-identified men going to address these issues - without relying exclusively on women and gay-identified men ?

I don't think you need to exclusively rely on women and gay men for this, not nowadays anyway. I do have discussions with my mates about it on occasion, point out where they're being a dick and indeed have it pointed out to me by my female friends where I might be being a dick. Gender roles are hugely internalised in men and women and yes it does often need women to point this out but once they've been pointed out it is up to men to address these issues by acting on it.

None of this requires a MRM, it does require more men to identify with feminism though. The paradox is a lot of men would be fearful of being called a pussy or whatever for identifying with feminism, a misogynistic notion that's a direct result of patriarchy, which means a stronger need for feminism. As I've said elsewhere the MRM highlight issues about men having to 'man up,' have to fight wars, protect women and so on but they completely miss that's a result of patriarchal gender roles. A lot of feminists on the other hand shoot themselves in the foot by, perhaps understandably, focusing too much on the effects of patriarchy on women and only giving a nod to its effects on men.
 
The Spirit Level shows the detrimental effects on health, mental and physical, of inequality. I haven't read it for a while and I'm not going to look in the references right now but it's about inequality and not poverty.

We've discussed the Spirit Level. It's hardly uncontested.
 
Back
Top Bottom