As for the Men/Women's Rights/Issues thing. Well, I'll grant an exception for what I'm about to say for Prostate Cancer. There are a fair few illnesses that the NHS could be doing more public education on the signs of in order to improve early-detection rates (Any talk on that probably belongs in the...well, I guess Brexit thread since that's basically the "Britain" thread).
But, aside from that (Spoiler'd because it's all getting off-topic):
I'd be sniggering too if I was an MP. Scratch that, I'd be hitting my head on the bench so hard and so repeatedly that it'd probably give myself a concussion. Why? Because those issues mentioned, Male Suicide, Male Violence, any discussion on them would be a discussion on Women's Rights Issues.
Male-on-male violence is higher mostly because it is seen that a man who strikes another man is striking an equal, a peer, someone of the same status as them. A man who strikes a woman is striking a 'lesser', and so lowering themselves to a lower level. It's the same basic logic as a domestic abuser, except instead of "Lowering themselves to the level of the woman and thus worthy of punishment" they are "Putting the lesser one back in their place". Or if a rich person struck a poor person, they're "lowering themselves to the lower of the poor". It's the rich person being seen as of "higher status" than the poor person that causes that perception.
Male Suicide is higher because men are taught, from a young age, to hide their feelings and to not show weakness. Men don't cry. Because that's what women do. And you don't want to be like a women, do you? It's a direct result of the perceived lower status of women. It's like how if a man wears a dress, he is a gender traitor. Daring to 'lower himself' to the level of a woman. The issue isn't that men can't wear dresses, it's the cultural perception of lowering themselves to a level of *gasp* a woman. Likewise, a woman wearing trousers was seen as trying to 'escape her station' by 'trying to be like a man, and thus elevate herself to the level of men'. And that cultural perception of woman being somehow lower than men is what needs to be addressed. It's still, at the end of the day, a discussion on Women's Rights/Feminism and not "Male Issues" (Eliminating that perception from all cultures completely being basically the end-goal of Feminism).
Claiming there needs to be a talk on men's issues is like claiming there needs to be a talk on protecting the white man from the white man's burden. The issue isn't the White Man's Burden, it's the need to eliminate the cultural concept of the White Man's Burden. The issue isn't Men's Rights, it's the need to remove the cultural concept that women are lesser than men and thus it is a bad thing for a man to show what are perceived as 'womanly' traits.
Women getting childcare more often than men? Same thing as the mocking of "Stay-at-home dads" and "Househusbands", child raising is seen as a 'job for a woman' and men who do so are mocked for 'lowering themselves to that level' by 'being womanly'.
Any talk on how to stop those problems has to be on how to eliminate the idea of women as lesser than men from our culture, thereby allowing men to act in ways that are currently thought of as 'womanly'. Just as any talk on "White Man's Burden" would need to be approached from a "Not being a racist C U Next Tuesday" point of view. Eliminating the cultural idea of the white man's burden, not protecting White Men from it. The other way around is just ignorance of the issues.
But that's all getting way off-topic and probably better off in the Gender thread. Though I guess it can be tangentially tied in to the whole "In your lifetime, you will never see 8 women standing around writing a law telling Men what they can do with their genitalia" thing.
In other news, America continues to poke the bear:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38860352President Donald Trump tweeted earlier: "Iran is playing with fire - they don't appreciate how 'kind' President Obama was to them. Not me!"
But Iran has said it will not yield to "useless" American threats from "an inexperienced person".
A very different approach - Kim Ghattas, BBC News
President Obama may have sanctioned Iran for its missile test a year ago as well, but President Trump's sanctions come in a very different context and from a very different team.
This administration is filled with officials whose are fixated on Iran, such as National Security Advisor Michael Flynn or Defence Secretary James Mattis.
Mr Obama focused on fostering a tone that wouldn't jeopardise the Islamic Republic's commitment to the nuclear deal. He rarely referred to Iran's paramilitary activities in the region.
But the Treasury Department's mention on Friday of "Iran's malign activity abroad" was a reference to Iranian support for Shia militias and involvement in countries such as Syria and Iraq.
There may be still be echoes of Obama's policies here, but the whole framework of the approach has changed and Mr Trump and his team are signalling clearly they want to cut Iran to size.
Does anybody else get the feeling the Trump administration is like a drunk at a bar, trying to start a fight with anyone who looks at them? Only instead of a fight, it's war. And instead of a bar, it's the
entire fucking planet.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4472728 times)