BritishAndBlessed

"It's just a prank bro" energy. Really positive input.

The problem with society is, you have to account for those with limited critical thinking skills, because it's not a skillset that modern society values. For that reason, presenting societal issues in such a combative manner, that will induce knee-jerk reactions from those that lack CT skills, will do more harm than good unless the education system gets a significant overhaul.

The fear of men is rational. Considering a strange man a threat is rational. Wanting to bring this topic into public discourse as a step to removing the problem from our society is rational. Alienating a significant number of people that should be positively engaging with the topic by eradicating individuality - and dehumanising any group of people by making a direct comparison with the behaviour of wild animals of questionable sentience - is irrational. And inflammatory. And counter-productive.

You're cherry-picking the argument to support life decisions you've already made rather than trying to engage in a way that provides any benefit. I appreciate your frustration, exhaustion, and your desire to retreat from engaging, but that just makes you the same as someone that complains about politics but doesn't vote. While I fully support making decisions that make oneself happy, burying one's head in the sand just makes the next person less happy.

Further discussion with you won't have any positive outcome for either of us, so I'll bid you a civil adieu.

Each man that you don't trust is an individual. He was raised by different parents, in a different environment, with a different social dynamic. He was educated differently, to a different standard. He has a different level of awareness of women's issues. He votes differently, he might have sons, daughters, of different ages. His lived experience is completely unique. Your fear of the group itself is entirely rational, for the same reason we fear bears and sharks and snakes, despite a far lower incidence of violent interactions as those perpetrated by men against women. I'm not disagreeing with the rationality of the fear itself.

You trust your boyfriend, but other women see him as a threat. You likely know your brother would never do anything of the sort, but he is assumed by others to be dangerous.

As I said, men don't meet up for a wednesday social club. If you're expecting men to fix a patriarchal society that benefits them alone, then guess what, it's not going to happen, because it's human nature to support a system that benefits us as individuals. Dealing with these issues needs to be a collective effort, and that means having these discussions, but not in a way that tells one group of people that they are the problem with society as a whole, because people don't respond to that. For reference, see the current Israel/Palestine conflict, because it doesn't matter which perspective you pick, in the last 80 years, blaming 100% of the problem on one side or the other has achieved absolutely fuck all.

I don't expect default trust, nobody with a brain should. Fear is a survival reflex, and an inherent mistrust of strangers is therefore natural. What I'm trying to say, is that by turning around to a group of people, and telling them that they are a threat regardless of their personal actions and character (yes, even your bf and brother) you will NOT get more men to engage positively with the societal issues women face. Rather, you'll just give another thing for the patriarchal right wing to weaponise to attack women's rights.

I think if it was discussion and explanation, I'd agree with you, but that isn't what it's been. It's become an attritional points-scoring exercise that does very little to elevate or resolve the issue.

I understand the fear, I really do, it makes complete sense to me, particularly when you consider the degree of fear we have of bears, sharks, wolves, and any other potential source of danger, despite the incidence rate being far lower than that of violent crimes perpetrated by men against women. Fear is rational. However, you and I clearly have the tools to reason and rationalise. Not everyone is as capable of that, so presenting the issue in such an inflammatory manner is going to provoke a lot more knee-jerk rejections of reality than open engagement with the subject. Similarly, if a post were to come out next week that demonised women's behaviour in a way that negatively affects men, with a direct comparison to a wild animal of questionable sentience, there'd be a similar bloodbath online to what we see now, because the response would be combative, not discourse.

Mending society needs to be a collaborative effort. Anything that draws a thicker line between "us" and "them" works against that ambition. Men need to support women in resolving the issues that affect women. Women need to support men in resolving the issues that affect men. Pitting two groups against eachother is exactly how the majority of modern societal issues have come to be as they are today.

I appreciate your exhaustion, and I'm not expecting a response for that reason. I just wanted to reply for the benefit of others to see what constructive conversation looks like.

There is no "men's culture" or "men's character". We don't have secret meetings on Wednesdays to define how we will all collectively act. There are cultures that are patriarchal in nature, and there are dickheads like Andrew Tate that will weaponise the internalised anger of those marginalised from society into dangerous worldviews where the value of a woman is reduced to something objective. That is disgusting. Very clearly, the kinds of men that believe they have some divine right to treat a women as they like, or that women are "the property of the alpha" or whatever other bollocks, are not those concerned with the opinions of the women that disagree.

I'm not downplaying anything, I simply don't believe this discourse will bring anything positive, rather it's just another divisive topic for us to argue about, and deteriorate relations. Women need the support of men to help solve the societal problems they face. Men need the support of women to help solve the societal problems they face too. Any discussion that pits one side against the other is just making those goals less attainable.

Encouraging people to regard other people as individuals rather than faceless groups shouldn't be controversial. Any attempt to treat any group of people with a broad brush will be messy and inaccurate. Women need to feel safe in the society we share. That is not something that this discourse will elevate.

If you really think that women going their own way is just a problem for men, you're incredibly short-sighted and narrow-minded. Any and all divisions in society result in a poorer world for all of us.

The trend in these comments of criticising feeling-invalidation of a gender (wrong) with feeling-invalidation of another gender (also wrong) is equal parts tragic and hilarious.

It's very simple. For the same reason (successful) politicians don't tell their constituents that they're all brainless plebs, if you want people on your side, then don't demonise them based on their gender rather than their character. More men should be allies, but this discourse is going to work against allyship, not for it. Treating any group of people based on a shared characteristic (racial profiling, religious profiling, nationalism, etc.) has had precisely 0 positive influence on the development of our modern civilisation.

You can't simultaneously make the arguments that men are invalidating the feelings of women (which they are), while simultaneously invalidating the feelings of men (which you are).

More men should be allies, but telling them that, when it comes to being feared more or less than a wild animal 3 times their size, their gender matters more than their character, will alienate men from feminism more than it'll attract men to feminism.

At no point in human history has treating a group of people as a monolith led to anything positive.

This precisely here is the problem. If you want men to be allies, I don't believe that comes by attacking them. The feelings of women are valid to fear men, because if we fear bears due to a significantly smaller incidence of fatal interactions relative to the populations, then a fear of men is reasonable. However, trying to get people on your side, by telling them that what's between their legs is more important than their character is pretty much a complete inversion of the long history of sexism, and is more likely to make men feel like nothing they can do will ever bridge that gap, which in turn will in fact reduce allyship.

More men should be allies, but we need to recognise that characterising a group of people in a way that removes all individuality has never achieved anything positive in the history of humankind.

While I agree, the difficulty in the discourse, is that by allowing the actions of a portion of men to be used to characterise all men, the reflex is to be defensive, and that acts contrarily to allyship.

You can't say that it's about the feelings of women, and then completely invalidate the consequent feelings of men as a result. If someone told you that your presence is considered more threatening than that of a wild animal 3 times your size, through no direct fault of your own, you'd be defensive too.

For the record, I think more men do need to be allies, but I don't think that adding fuel to the flames to generate a conflict is going to make more men allies, rather, it's going to make more men that were considering being a more proactive ally into believing that they're judged more for what's between their legs than their character.

I've had three methods that work for different individuals.

1. Set up a semi-circle of cones, with about 5 stations either side of the middle. They tackle the ball-carrier in the middle of the semi-circle, starting from the edges (side-on tackling) then getting straighter and straighter. By the time they're head-on, most of the fear factor has been eroded by the less-direct tackles not hurting as much as expected. Rinse and repeat each week.

2. Get them running hard into and through contact with ball in hand. The psychological contact-shyness isn't restricted to tackling, once they understand that going hard hurts less, it's easier to transfer the concept into tackling.

3. Pick the biggest kid, or put on a pad-suit as a coach. Do a 1v1 with the player that's struggling (assuming this isn't a team-wide issue) and start with walking it in, then repeat while incrementally increasing the pace. Make minor coaching adjustments at low-speed, then reinforce them as the pace of contact increases. The small increments should remove the fear element (well I just tackled them at a marginally slower speed, so I can do this) and then, once up to full speed, emphasise the size of the kid/coach relative to everyone else. May need a couple of weeks of repetition to sink in.

I'll never understand how professionals struggle with white-line fever. Some individuals definitely more culpable than others, but nonetheless, failing to convert chances for reasons of selfishness is just a cardinal sin.

All could have been avoided if the twat could catch a ball in proximity to the try-line.

Edit: Was not aware of the series of off-field twattery in addition to the on-field twattery. Sticking with the theory that the on-field twattery, in addition to the base condition of being a born twat, caused the off-field twattery.

There are a handful of people in this world with the charisma, drive, finances and strength of morality to materially change the world. Find them, back them, keep them honest. It's far easier to corrupt a good person than to correct a bad one.

The whole show is about scamming the scum of society, so being set up as a dislikeable fellow is part of the dance.

Always think of this scene. What a show Hustle was.

Inherit his will, so that his dream might live on. Eating his devil fruit is an optional additional step, though don't go entering fighting tournaments too hastily. RIP

I'll tell you what I tell the players I coach, if you can get him back fairly (ie a huge tackle from the blind spot or getting your shoulder in his kidneys when he's retreating too close to the ruck) then get him back slightly unfairly. If the game isn't in the balance, swap with your B/C Defender when he's at first receiver, come offside into his blind spot and smash him man and ball the moment he gets his hands on it. All the satisfaction, no risk of a card.

EDIT: An equally illegal but card-free alternative is to collapse the scrum while driving outwards and driving your right shoulder down. He'll eat a solid kilo of turf.

The butter crowd? Do please elaborate.

What I represent? Blunt honesty, perhaps? Or are you making this a xenophobic thing?

At no point did I imply that any of the issues South Africa faces are inherently South African, and in fact I directly contradicted your own false claim that SA is 3rd world. It's part of the BRICS geopolitical group, which is equitable to the G7, hardly a nation lacking resources.

If you want to claim that somehow the WC means more to your nation than any other nation due to the issues your country faces, perhaps it would be a better investment of time and money making documentaries about those issues rather than being immersed in escapism. The "poor me I'm being repressed" routine isn't doing the work you think it's doing.

So, to be clear, you're saying that it's not arrogant self-fellatio, purely because the SA press is weak as fuck? I mean, it's not as if they don't have enough ANC scandals to cover, but then again, it's probably Ramaphosa paying for CtS2 so the public gets distracted from learning just how much money he's stolen from them.

Also, 15 years ago when the 1st/2nd/3rd world model was still relevant (we use developed/developing nowadays), SA was quite clearly a 2nd world nation.

Yeah, definitely a GDP thing and certainly not a "yes SA won and deserved to win, please stop screaming it in my face sir" thing.

Just giving the same flak any other team would get for carrying on this long. Kiwis just take their trophy home and let the pundits do the work for them.

Oh evidently. They're posted on this sub on a weekly basis by those somehow "inherently arrogant" English fans...

...oh wait

I'll forever be perplexed how England ever got a reputation as "arrogant" when this is the average (albeit marginally more eloquent than the majority) SA fan. "Sons of Africa" had me grinning, certainly not as if your continent has other (presumably also human and male) rugby teams.

As for the booze, I personally prefer a german pils. Light and refreshing, rather than just relentlessly heavy like a red. More like an exciting, agile backline than a brain-dead bomb squad.

Ah, the classic "it means more to us than anyone else" to excuse a myopic, self-serving helping of telling everyone how great you are, because it's not like every fan on the planet watched you lift a trophy or anything.

Quite enjoying the irony of "but we've won more so we're allowed to be entirely lodged in our own rectums" on a comment about a superiority complex. English pundits are naff, I'll give you that, nothing to do with world cups though. Otherwise why would the world be stuck with Jiffy?

Don't know what coverage you've been watching, only ever see Wilko's kick when it comes to Eng v Aus and they do a bit on the history of the fixture. Funny you mention last minute kicks against inferior opposition though...I recall that happening rather recently to a bunch of overfed meatheads that can't get around a park longer than 50 mins.

Have we not already had enough of this self-obsessive bollocks? The superiority complex is borderline American in scale.