Women are all over that kind of masculine display, for a start, as I learnt nearly 20 years ago.
100% of commenters, eh? How the fuck how you’ve determined this? A census?
Your argument is rather irrational, sorry. You can’t possibly know how many people out there agree with the spirit behind Morgan’s comment, because they aren’t necessarily going to stick out their necks for him on Twitter.
Consider that the strong response against Morgan actually supports the idea that he isn’t an island unto himself opinion-wise. The backlash indicates his comment has struck a real nerve among people who have experienced attitudes like his in real life. If his opinion didn’t remind so many people of the raised eyebrows and snickers that “emasculated” men often get, it’s unlikely anyone would care enough about his dig at Daniel Craig. We’d all be scratching our heads at an apparent non sequitur.
This blog post, which predates Morgan’s Twitter, shows that at least one other man on the planet has internalized the idea that baby wearing is regarded as feminine. Amazing, huh? Wonder where could he have come by this bizarre idea? Maybe from the same place that Piers Morgan did? Why, I think that’s very possible. The word culture comes to mind.
If y’all want to treat Morgan as an isolated viewpoint, feel free to that. But then I’m going to not have much patience the next time Quartz starts a thread talking about how men are victims of sexism and how no one cares about it.
wait, what? how on earth does that work? Social media participants are not known for being reticent about voicing unpopular opinions.
I don’t see that, nor do I hear it. The opinions you seem to think of as common is something I literally never hear outside of social media teacup-storms.
but I thought you said that people don’t dare voice such opinions…which is it?
Also, what on earth gives you the idea that a specific message board, something of a self-selecting sample, is in any way representative of the general opinion of the wider public.
in your narrow corner of the world, perhaps. Generally…no.
whoah! it is PIERS MORGAN. Do not draw any conclusions from what he says other than what has already been forcefully laid out for you in the rest of the thread. He is a five-star cunt.
Here’s another article about the experiences that baby-wearing fathers have and their feelings about it.
Read what three of them said when asked what message they’d want to share with other male caregivers.
Reading this could almost make you think people associate baby-wearing with unmanliness. But what do I know.
Do you think everyone on the planet air their opinions on social media?
I don’t know what to tell you except get out more? Or expand your internet reading? The absence of awareness on your part should not be taken as evidence of jack shit.
Parenting boards are awash with stories about people’s experiences, good and bad. For instance, fathers will talk about the negative experiences they’ve had when they go to playgrounds with their kids. Mothers will talk about how their husbands are unwilling to comprise when it comes to division of duties. Stories about sons playing with dolls and the flak associated with that.
You can learn a lot about what goes on outside your own little world by simply doing some google searching.
I’ve read Twitter and the press. And you obviously don’t dispute it, based on your subsequent comments.
My point was precisely that you can’t possibly use the absence of comments defending Piers as evidence that a lot of people agree with him. So you’ve said I’m irrational, and in the very next sentence repeated exactly what I said.
In your other comments, you have now started to produce some valid evidence that toxic masculinity is a widespread problem, which is not something I dispute. Thank you.
I agree with you. But you can’t expect to convince people who disagree with you unless you can do better than:
Lots of comments in support of X ==> lots of people believe X
No comments in support of X ==> lots of people believe X but they are afraid to talk about it
Remember on this very board a few years ago when we had a discussion about someone’s wife being all antsy about her kid’s primary teacher being a man? We were all solidly on the side of ‘yeah? what of it?’ but that’s not to say that it’s not a thing for people. It most certainly is a ‘thing’ for lots of people (both male and female - at least as much of the Gender Policing comes from the womens’ side as the mens’, by my reckoning)
I don’t want to argue over a trivial point if we both agree toxic masculinity is a thing. But I’m annoyed you insist on challenging my assertion with an argument as unsophisticated as yours is. You can’t possibly extrapolate the opinions of the whole world from what you’ve read on Twitter.
If Trump called Omarosa a nigger bitch on Twitter tomorrow, you probably wouldn’t be able to find a solitary Twitter post or news article defending him. But it would be wrong to conclude from this no one is sympathetic to his view. We can be sure that Trump knows he has an receptive audience for comments like that, just as we can be sure Morgan is appealing to his “feminists are out of control” fan base whenever he expresses himself.
Err…my point is exactly the opposite. Only a small selection of people do and you shouldn’t base your opinions on what gets said online seeing as they self-select.
If my contention is that internet and social media comments are not representative of the actual balance of opinion then increasing my exposure to that is unlikely to be helpful. I don’t do twitter or facebook or anything like that and won’t be doing so any time soon.
And getting out more? you mean interactions and experiences with real people? that’s exactly where I get my impression that overall people are perfectly happy with what Daniel Craig did.
OK, just think for a minute about what is going on there and under what circumstances people are likely to post their opinions. Aren’t you likely to see postings from people at the extremes of opinion? I suggest that the vast majority of people who are fine with such things, have no strong opinion either way, who’s division of duties are OK, who’ve had no negative experiences…ARE NOT GOING TO POST.
Take a random thread on this board…say on the subject of F1. It would be idiotic to imagine that the opinions in that thread are widespread amongst the public in general. Hell, they aren’t even representative of the board members in general seeing as those with no strong opinion or interest…ARE NOT GOING TO POST.
Take the subject of 9/11 conspiracies. The internet is awash with very strongly held views on this from both sides. The vast majority of people though accept the mundane (but tragic) fact that it was a terrorist act carried out by Islamic fundamentalists and merely roll their eyes at the CT’s. As a result there are very few message boards dedicated to their central message of…“meh”
you can find evidence for whatever position you wish to hold certainly, but extrapolating from that to a generalisation that holds true for the population is more problematic.
I honestly wasn’t aware that people were being patient with Quartz when he made posts like that. I thought we usually just took the piss out of him on those occasions?
That’s an assertion that you’re making but you have no way of supporting it, so I don’t know why you insist upon it. I’ve provided evidence from fathers themselves who believe these attitudes are prevalent enough to warrant commentary, plus I have my own set of observations to draw from. But instead of simply conceding that others may be experiencing things you aren’t and that ignorance may account for your failure to see this as a larger issue, you insist on the above.
Truly, it makes as much sense as assuming only a scant few people in the world are racist because “only a small selection of people [have problems with folks outside their race] and you shouldn’t base your opinions on what gets said online seeing as they self-select.” Um no, that’s not how this works.
I don’t know why you think this is an argument you need to make; of course it’s not representative. My position, in fact, is that because it’s not representative, we can’t infer from all the backlash Morgan has generated anything about whether people are sympathetic to his view. Evidence for that comes elsewhere.
If I limited my assessments about the world to only what I know about the people I know in real life, I’d be constantly in the wrong. For instance, I personally know of very few Trump supporters. Since clearly there are a lot more supporters out there maybe the 1 or 2% that exist in my bubble, I can only assume that my circle of contacts is not representative of the greater population. Can you not see that you’re in the same boat here?
You are misunderstanding me completely. I do not and have not denied that people hold such opinions. I have not and do not claim that my experiences must represent the world as it is but certainly my experiences of living in a world where those views and issues are not a problem carries just as much validity as yours.
The evidence you present from the fathers is self-selecting. You can’t show me the greater number of articles written from the viewpoint of fathers (like me and those I know) who have never experienced those attitudes. You know why? because of course those articles do not get written. Why would they? They’d be boring. Extreme opinions and experiences sell.
When that’s an argument I’m making I’ll let you know. What is true is that opinions expressed, via social media and on the internet, on any subject, no matter how mundane or important, will pretty much always come from the extremes and those extremes will not necessarily tell you anything about what the majority actually thinks and acts.
So you admit that online opinions are not representative, You do realise that is my point. I’ve never claimed that the backlash says anything at all, the backlash is a product of polarised opinions expressed online that I specifically say is not representative of the majority.
Does my experience count as evidence? that comes from elsewhere. if not why not? what evidence would lead you to accept that the views of Piers Morgan and social media posters for and against his views do not properly represent the views of the majority?
So you are backing up evidence from a skewed group of people with which you interact in real life with a self-selecting group of people on the internet?
As for me? the people around me cover a wide range of demographics and political affiliation The benefits of working across multiple, international businesses across the world. The conversations I hear and the views expressed seem pretty consistent with how the polls move. If I paid any attention to social media and internet chat groups I can’t see how that would help give me a more representative appreciation of the majority views.
So no, from what you’ve said I don’t think i’m in the same boat as you but then I am from the UK so perhaps that’s to be expected.
And careful with that final of quote of mine you used. The text has been altered. Clearly an accident and I don’t mind as it didn’t fundamentally change anything I’d said but I’ve been caught out by that before.
my mistake, it is the second last quote of mine that was changed, no biggee.
…he’d be Katie Hopkins.
I agree that toxic masculinity is a real thing, and if the comments had come from someone else it would almost certainly be a good example of it. But everything Morgan says, on pretty much every topic, is toxic, so to narrow it down to “toxic masculinity” in this instance is almost to give Morgan more credit than he deserves. He’s an equal-opportunity asshole.
Yup, I’ll do that… even if I’m not saving ANYone. I’ll just do it anyway Because … reasons 
Neither did I, and it seemed unlikely that it was based off Berkshire Hunt, given that in the UK, Berkshire is pronounced Barkshire. However, on researching it I learned that the Cockney rhyming slang is actually Berkley Hunt, normally also pronounced Barkley, but in Cockney it is pronounced Burkley. So now we know.