Or diabetes and GERD … nothing like frothing at the mouth with a diabetic attack or sleeping with a breathing mask and oxygen to make you look like a man.
I’m not diabetic … but half my family is (and I have a big family) … and I’ve seen my share of out of control diabetics who have full blown attacks because they are so chaotic that they don’t bother monitoring themselves or their disease. I’m Indigenous Canadian from northern Ontario and I have a pretty dysfunctional family … I’ve seen young men in their 20s with out of control diabetes … people in their 30s with blood sugar so freaking high, you wonder why they are still alive … .people in their 40s with amputations due to diabetes … and people dying in their 50s from the disease. It’s terrible. On many occasions I’ve had to call ambulances and take family and friends to emerg because they were helplessly losing control of their mind and bodies due to diabetes … it isn’t pretty and absolutely terrifying.
As to the GERD … that disease affects mostly my affluent friends in cities and towns in the south … I have four friends who are in their 50s who have severe GERD to the point where they can’t breathe at night because the reflux is affecting their esophagus and obstructing their airway … and the only way they can properly breathe at night is with a mask and oxygen.
I’ve been a type 1 diabetic for 12 years and a director at a kids camp for type 1 diabetics for 5 years. There is no such thing as a “diabetic attack”. There is high blood sugar (because diabetics either don’t make or don’t process insulin) and there is low blood sugar (because an insulin dependent diabetic took too much insulin). What you are trying to describe is a diabetic seizure which 99% of the time is an accidental overdose of insulin (low blood sugar).
Now if you’re trying to talk about complications from uncontrolled diabetes from a lifetime of not taking care of it yes that is terrible, but that’s the minority of diabetics and you have to go to pretty extreme lengths of not taking care of it (literally years/decades) to get to that point, so let’s not act like the issue is the diabetes itself.
And even if we ignore all that what the fuck does that have to do with eating meat? Most diabetics prefer a high protein diet because it’s CARBS that raise blood sugar. If you’re argument is meat = fat = overweight then 2 things, overweight doesn’t cause diabetes (it’s a factor for type 2 only), and 2: the issue still isn’t the diabetes, it’s the complete lack of caring for a medical issue.
Gen-X men see eye-to-eye with male Gen-Zers. An identical 43 percent of men in that bracket call themselves feminists, compared to 49 percent of the generation’s women.
I feel like the authors think these 2 sentences are supporting the same argument, and I think they do not.
Asking someone if they “identify as a feminist” is vastly different than exploring their core values. “Feminism” is a badly exploited word that means many different things to many different people, even within a generational cohort.
It’s entirely possible that the sample of Gen-Xers that identify as feminist also carry more regressive beliefs than Gen-Zers that said they were not feminists.
The way this study was summarized in the article smells a lot like an older author (read: Gen-X or Boomer) trying to make sense of Gen-Z by plopping them into buckets created for the older generation.
I don’t know anything about anything, but this smelled less of science than an article reporting a study ought to.
But do they identify as a non-labelled person that respects women and their choices? Or is this just about political labelling made for marketing and division?
The way I do it (cast iron pan on the BBQ, screamin’ hot at 700+C) is super delicious. So much so that I think I might fire up a steak this weekend. Gotta check the weather forecast to see if it’s worthwhile.
It’s not just a gender thing, it’s also a family/culture thing. Like I just come from a family where people will talk over each other, but than I have some balkan friends who will talk over me like it’s nothing (no matter the gender). What I try to do is to adjust to the situation - if someone is quieter I will let them speak out, if someone is interrupting I will also join in in a more lively way. In a group setting if I see that someone is getting talked over - I will try to refer the conversation back to them.
To me what stands out is not the fact that men speak up more than women do, but that women get ignored/dismissed when they do speak. I make an effort to:
Give them attention
Understand their point of view
Engage in their point of view
Not let others (men) interrupt and if they do, quickly get back to the core discussion until the speaker is satisfied/has said everything they wanted to say
Basically give your attention not to the loudest ones, but the ones that deserve it. Things like these make all people who usually don’t engage in discussions more likely to engage in the future.
I think you are absolutely right. In general I think that everyone should feel comfortable to speak when they want but in return should respect that other people get the right to have their voice heard too.
When dealing with small groups, I ask participants for their perspective by name. The loudest doesn’t go first, and everyone gets equal-ish time. That doesn’t scale to a large forum though.
Which is why we also have a bunch of men who are trying to hold on to jr. high mindsets about what they were told adulthood is like, rather than allowing themselves to mature beyond the gaming communities they found support in.
Remember, Steve Bannon already abused gaming communities for political gain.
The real question, is how hard would it be to set up networks of healthier mindsets, when games are doing their best to remove private servers from the minds of others, when those private servers are needed for securing the audience and preventing poor faith individuals from taking control
I’ve seen a few other articles on this issue and the double standard is astounding.
If a conventional minority group struggles, they need to be helped. If it’s a man, screw them! They’re oppressive and don’t deserve help.
If men are dominant in certain fields, it’s a sign of systematic discrimination against women. If women are dominant in certain fields, then that’s just because men suck at xyz and this is just the natural outcome.
And the funny part is, I read one article about this and the editor (a middle aged woman as usual) said that this imbalanced ratio is an issue because surprise surprise young women won’t have enough men to date!
It’s almost like men’s issues only matter if it affects women, and somehow that’s the only concern.
If men are dominant in certain fields, it’s a sign of systematic discrimination against women. If women are dominant in certain fields, then that’s just because men suck at xyz and this is just the natural outcome.
I’m open to having my mind changed, but I think that might actually be true. In cases where men are dominant, we can point to specific discriminatory situations. We can see how hiring committees consist primarily or exclusively of men. We can see how popular depictions of people in [field] are all male. We can note that neurodivergent boys are far more likely to get diagnoses and support than neurodivergent girls. With the exception of certain fields like education and nursing, I can’t think of any systemic factors that discriminate against men.
I don’t think an imbalance necessarily means that we should automatically assume discrimination, for example there is a small correlation between sex and interest (men to objects, women to living things) which may account for some discrepancy in certain fields.
Hiring committees would depend but very often we see HR is majority female, and some studies show that female named job applications in certain cases may be more favoured even when the exact same application is given with a male name.
In terms of school, I can attest that boys need to stop fucking around during class time and actually pay attention, but I’ve seen another study show that for the exact same work, public school teachers sometimes mark higher for a girls work.
The last point I would make is that there are quite a few female only grants and bursaries and aid programs, but there’s very few that outright exist for males.
That’s my two cents, but I understand your perspective as well.
I think Warren Farrell especially, and a bit of Leonard Sax as well have gone into this in more detail.
Unfortunately the mainstream feminist objection is that “men should just make their own support organizations” but the problem is sometimes the government won’t give them a nickel, which I find absurd.
This guy in Calgary Canada made a men’s domestic violence shelter, (shockingly women are first statistically to initiate domestic violence, which I didn’t know). This was around 2011 or so? But the local feminists at the time online were saying that he should not feel entitled to government funding and only women’s shelters should get government funding. I think he killed himself afterwards.
So it seems like when men do band together to make a support group, it doesn’t get the same amount of government support as a women’s group will.
As a partially disabled man, unable to run and too weak to fight, I’m on guard a lot. It’s fucking exhausting. Yet it’s still a tiny fraction of what women experience. The entirety of unwanted attention and actions against women is too much to really comprehend for men.
What change can we make as men that will be a rising tide, lifting both men and women?
I’m very much a proponent of 2A rights. But carrying, by itself, is not going to eliminate fear, and may not even moderate it significantly. And someone that’s disabled may not be able to effectively use a firearm, and they certainly won’t be able to use one effectively with training.
Uh, what? I’m Canadian, but isn’t the Second Amendment a negative right? The government isn’t allowed to stop you from carrying a gun. You can agree with that and still think there are reasons an individual might not want to carry a gun.
Or the best phrase ist: there is no point in generalizing literally half of human population.
And the point with confidence is more that it makes your whole life easy(not just dating) - since you are just not really afraid to fail no matter the odds, but it’s really difficult to develop as an adult.
Confidence is difficult to build all of your life, not just as an adult. It wasn’t really a problem with “girls like” but more the “just don’t be insecure” connotations
As a child it’s basically your parents supporting and believing in you (helps being good at something). As an adult it’s being really good at something and working on your childhood trauma of not supportive parents.
I don’t really get your point - since not being insecure just helps generally in life. And it’s always good to work on ones insecurities - be it just for oneselfs peace of mind.
Maybe Occupational Health and Safety should run commercials being like “If you’re a real man, you have a 3 point hold whenever you’re on a ladder and have someone watch you.”
I feel like empowering the “Real Man” bullshit, even in a subversive way, is generally a bad idea. Could be an effective campaign though, so maybe the benefits outweigh the drawbacks.
mensliberation
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.