Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Peregrine

Again, off topic posts on appearance of feminists deleted. Some people seem to be treating this thread as an ongoing thread to discuss all aspects about feminism. Evident by the user who marched in to rant about some random feminist he knew (i.e. absolutely feck all to do with the topic) and stemmed a discussion on feminist's appearances. Back on topic please. That's 'Louise O'Neill on rape culture'.

Mod

Widdershins

A poster recently complained about an obsession with Louise O'Neill and now anything not about her is being deleted! I was under the impression a slight bit of deviation from the literal wording of the title was acceptable in most Boards conversations? It's a bit restrictive to only be allowed to talk about an aspect of feminism that has been spoken about by Louise O'Neill!.

RabbleRouser2k

I think it's more staying on topic with regards to relating to both LoN, and co and their belief in the 'rape culture' myth. Then discussion of that and other perceptions of it within. Like, criticising a person who starts saying 'feminism makes one physically ugly' ie appearance is not helpful at all-it's similar thinking to 'girls, don't do math, you'll get wrinkles'-totally silly thinking.

A critique of physical appearance is unrelated to anything.

hatrickpatrick

Just to point out, some people became MRAs because they genuinely resent having grown up in what they perceive to be a gynocentric society - and their grievance is not against a particular woman or even women in general, but simply against what they see as double standards against them which go ignored, or even championed, by the exact same mainstream society which rightfully demonises and opposes any double standards which target women.

The root cause of the growth in MRA and MGTOW movements is that many young men feel they live in a society which preaches the message "male = bad, female = good" in a not so subtle manner, and they resent this. Nothing more, nothing less.

I for one really wish that reasonable, moderate feminists would think about this the next time they're about to click retweet or share on some article which begins with a patronising headline like "we need to talk about X..." where X is some behaviour or trait stereotypically applied to men without a "some" qualifier.

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I think it's more staying on topic with regards to relating to both LoN, and co and their belief in the 'rape culture' myth. Then discussion of that and other perceptions of it within. Like, criticising a person who starts saying 'feminism makes one physically ugly' ie appearance is not helpful at all-it's similar thinking to 'girls, don't do math, you'll get wrinkles'-totally silly thinking.

A critique of physical appearance is unrelated to anything.

I agree it's not helpful but I was trying to get at why it's done in the first place, it's all connected in a way, how women are valued on their appearance, the feminist fight against it, and the idea of rape culture. I think this one is the only active thread on feminism in any form so it would have been good to explore it a bit, I thought.

Widdershins

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Just to point out, some people became MRAs because they genuinely resent having grown up in what they perceive to be a gynocentric society - and their grievance is not against a particular woman or even women in general, but simply against what they see as double standards against them which go ignored, or even championed, by the exact same mainstream society which rightfully demonises and opposes any double standards which target women.

The root cause of the growth in MRA and MGTOW movements is that many young men feel they live in a society which preaches the message "male = bad, female = good" in a not so subtle manner, and they resent this. Nothing more, nothing less.

I for one really wish that reasonable, moderate feminists would think about this the next time they're about to click retweet or share on some article which begins with a patronising headline like "we need to talk about X..." where X is some behaviour or trait stereotypically applied to men without a "some" qualifier.

Gynocentric society?

hatrickpatrick

Peregrine wrote: »

I've just banned two people for commenting on feminists' appearances and theorising on mental health issues. The last page or so been a cluster****.

And not only that, but it totally, completely and entirely undermines ideological or philosophical arguments when personal jibes like this are thrown in - we're handing them the ideological victory on a silver platter if we stoop to their level in this manner.

hatrickpatrick

Widdershins wrote: »

Gynocentric society?

A society which sends the message that women are inherently 'special' or matter more just because they're female. When you're a young boy growing up, without any historical or contextual knowledge, and people say things like "ladies first" and "never hit a girl even if she attacks you", and this kind of message is reinforced by pop culture in hundreds of different ways (nursery rhymes praising girls while attacking boys are particularly insidious in this regard), then what exactly is a boy supposed to think about his place in society or how he's viewed on the basis of his gender?

Feminists are always talking (sometimes very legitimately) about how societal tropes harm girls and young women, but the fact that when people are kids girls tend to be put on an automatic gender based pedestal by adults (and thereby encouraged to do so themselves in the playground etc), this is something that is obviously going to have a knock on effect on boys' self-confidence and how they view themselves and their place in the world.

EDIT: I can give one or two examples of how this manifests in adults, as well as in kids.

Example A: If people on the radio are talking about women being under-represented in corporate achievement, that's a crime against humanity which is clearly caused by sexism - but if women are over-represented in educational achievement, that's a fantastic, wonderful thing and simply a sign of female potential - not the result of any systematic discrimination against males which needs to be tackled or dealt with somehow.

Example B: The whole argument around FGM, which is a horrific and totally unacceptable thing and is rightly being roundly condemned and attacked by feminists all over the world - but even though it's far less severe, the fact that a boy's penis is seen as fair game for a surgical procedure which is done for cultural or cosmetic reasons most of the time and which alters the sexual function of the penis, sends the simple message that "girls and their bodily autonomy is a sacred, non-negotiable thing - boys, well meh who gives a f*ck, slice them up if you like".

Honestly - what other conclusion is a preteen or teenage boy supposed to draw from these tropes? And I could ramble on providing dozens of other examples if people still didn't understand what I'm trying to illustrate here.

gizmo555

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

. . .even though it's far less severe, the fact that a boy's penis is seen as fair game for a surgical procedure which is done for cultural or cosmetic reasons most of the time and which alters the sexual function of the penis, sends the simple message that "girls and their bodily autonomy is a sacred, non-negotiable thing - boys, well meh who gives a f*ck, slice them up if you like".

It's not always less severe. FGM is of course abhorrent, but to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't caused the death of any Irish girl or woman. On the other hand, Callis Osaghae, a 30 day old Waterford boy, bled to death after a botched home circumcision in 2003. It doesn't get more severe than that.

The man who carried out the circumcision was acquitted of a charge of reckless endangerment, when the late Judge Kevin Haugh instructed the jury at Waterford Circuit Court to put their "white, Western values to one side" when considering their verdict. It is, I believe, inconceivable that any such instruction would have been given if it had been a female infant who died in this way.

Widdershins

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

A society which sends the message that women are inherently 'special' or matter more just because they're female. When you're a young boy growing up, without any historical or contextual knowledge, and people say things like "ladies first" and "never hit a girl even if she attacks you", and this kind of message is reinforced by pop culture in hundreds of different ways (nursery rhymes praising girls while attacking boys are particularly insidious in this regard), then what exactly is a boy supposed to think about his place in society or how he's viewed on the basis of his gender?

Feminists are always talking (sometimes very legitimately) about how societal tropes harm girls and young women, but the fact that when people are kids girls tend to be put on an automatic gender based pedestal by adults (and thereby encouraged to do so themselves in the playground etc), this is something that is obviously going to have a knock on effect on boys' self-confidence and how they view themselves and their place in the world.

EDIT: I can give one or two examples of how this manifests in adults, as well as in kids.

Example A: If people on the radio are talking about women being under-represented in corporate achievement, that's a crime against humanity which is clearly caused by sexism - but if women are over-represented in educational achievement, that's a fantastic, wonderful thing and simply a sign of female potential - not the result of any systematic discrimination against males which needs to be tackled or dealt with somehow.

Example B: The whole argument around FGM, which is a horrific and totally unacceptable thing and is rightly being roundly condemned and attacked by feminists all over the world - but even though it's far less severe, the fact that a boy's penis is seen as fair game for a surgical procedure which is done for cultural or cosmetic reasons most of the time and which alters the sexual function of the penis, sends the simple message that "girls and their bodily autonomy is a sacred, non-negotiable thing - boys, well meh who gives a f*ck, slice them up if you like".

Honestly - what other conclusion is a preteen or teenage boy supposed to draw from these tropes? And I could ramble on providing dozens of other examples if people still didn't understand what I'm trying to illustrate here.

I hadn't seen your edited part. Well I don't think circumcision is looked on like that. Yes FGM is more severe. I don't think there's more to this than that. I happen to know Irish women who call FGM ''just a little nick'' but they are wholly anti circumcision. It all depends on who you listen to!

LON definitely hasn't mentioned FGM by the way. And she probably hasn't tweeted about circumcision.

Peregrine

Someone PM me when Louise O'Neill posts about rape culture again and there's something on-topic for this thread to discuss.


Edit: Re-opened but if the thread goes off topic again then I'm closing it for good.

JRant

Well it seems that all it requires for rape culture to be present is a supposed accusation of harassment.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-o39neill-powerful-men-accused-of-crimes-against-women-should-fail-at-the-box-office-445543.html

RabbleRouser2k

JRant wrote: »

Well it seems that all it requires for rape culture to be present is a supposed accusation of harassment.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-o39neill-powerful-men-accused-of-crimes-against-women-should-fail-at-the-box-office-445543.html

She's blinded too-it's always 'the straight white man'-yet she ignores non-white folks, as well as women.

Michael Jackson-yep, everybody knows that case. Rebecca Gayheart-went to jail for manslaughter (killed a kid with her car), picked up quite a few gigs afterwards. Don King shot a guy, and stomped another guy to death over money owed.Laura Bush drove through a stop sign, and killed a classmate. Snoop dog killed a rival gang member.Charles S. Dutto killed a guy when he was 17. He's now a famous actor.

And the examples she uses are flawed-Ryder, yes the shoplifting thing was sad. But it didn't impact her career that severely, if anything it helped it-look at the movies she made before the arrest. Heigl is difficult because she insults or mocks the projects that got her noticed.

Folks get away with horrible crimes all the time-Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, stood trial for it, and yet the case collapsed because his alleged victim didn't want to testify. Bryant is far from white, yet he walked away from the case, with an unblemished, untarnished reputation. Look at Mike Tyson-same story (tho Tyson's is more questionable than Bryant's case). R. Kelly-statutory rape-yet the guy is celebrated.

And then we look at so-called 'feminists'-Paula Poundstone-accused of molesting a foster child. Amy Schumer jokes about the time she 'raped a guy' while Lena Dunham talks about how she 'forced a gay guy to make out with her'-it's in her book. Then complained when a black basketball player didn't hit on her (never mind she has a boyfriend).
And with the Depp case-she ignores how Amber Heard attacked an ex girlfriend-while Depp has not had any violence with previous girlfriend(s). And yet Heard got many high profile gigs after. Victor Salvas is a convicted paedophile, and yet he still gets work. And Singer, an openly gay man, has had numerous allegations of impropriety with young men. Yet he still makes the x-men movies.

Who is she to say we 'boycott' these people based on allegations? Rape, domestic violence, and so forth are horrible crimes-horrible. But we cannot have a trial by media/ public opinion. It's a metaphorcal flogging in public, which is all kinds of wrong.

Though I did laugh at her 'what if everyone conciously boycotted them' angle-this is the same woman who couldn't be bothered to march for 'a day without women'. She's the last person who would lead a boycott.

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

She's blinded too-it's always 'the straight white man'-yet she ignores non-white folks, as well as women.

Michael Jackson-yep, everybody knows that case. Rebecca Gayheart-went to jail for manslaughter (killed a kid with her car), picked up quite a few gigs afterwards. Don King shot a guy, and stomped another guy to death over money owed.Laura Bush drove through a stop sign, and killed a classmate. Snoop dog killed a rival gang member.Charles S. Dutto killed a guy when he was 17. He's now a famous actor.

Folks get away with horrible crimes all the time-Kobe Bryant was accused of rape, stood trial for it, and yet the case collapsed because his alleged victim didn't want to testify. Bryant is far from white, yet he walked away from the case, with an unblemished, untarnished reputation. Look at Mike Tyson-same story (tho Tyson's is more questionable than Bryant's case). R. Kelly-statutory rape-yet the guy is celebrated.

And then we look at so-called 'feminists'-Paula Poundstone-accused of molesting a foster child. Amy Schumer jokes about the time she 'raped a guy' while Lena Dunham talks about how she 'forced a gay guy to make out with her'-it's in her book. Then complained when a black basketball player didn't hit on her (never mind she has a boyfriend).
And with the Depp case-she ignores how Amber Heard attacked an ex girlfriend-while Depp has not had any violence with previous girlfriend(s). And yet Heard got many high profile gigs after. Victor Salvas is a convicted paedophile, and yet he still gets work. And Singer, an openly gay man, has had numerous allegations of impropriety with young men. Yet he still makes the x-men movies.

Who is she to say we 'boycott' these people based on allegations? Rape, domestic violence, and so forth are horrible crimes-horrible. But we cannot have a trial by media/ public opinion. It's a metaphorcal flogging in public, which is all kinds of wrong.

Though I did laugh at her 'what if everyone conciously boycotted them' angle-this is the same woman who couldn't be bothered to march for 'a day without women'. She's the last person who would lead a boycott.

''What if everyone else consciously boycotted them''

TheDavester

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/842772226164310017/photo/1
Cries about rape culture and this Wow

hatrickpatrick

TheDavester wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/842772226164310017/photo/1
Cries about rape culture and this Wow

"Privilege" denotes that only men can be demonised for expressing their sexuality. Women can do anything they want without being criticised for it. </LoN logic>

hatrickpatrick

LoN has a new article out in the Irish Examiner:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/powerful-men-accused-of-crimes-against-women-should-fail-at-the-box-office-445543.html

It's behind a paywall, but the headline is enough: "LOUISE O'NEILL: Powerful men, accused of crimes against women, should fail at the box office"

Key word here is "accused". Apparently the concepts of due process and innocent until proven guilty are concepts LoN hasn't come across, or just doesn't ideologically agree with.

Honestly, this is exactly the kind of "privilege" feminists go on about - of course she can advocate for taking away a guy's happiness and livelihood based on an unproven allegation, because as a woman it will never happen to her. Society only throws due process out the window when men are accused of doing something wrong.

TheDavester

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

LoN has a new article out in the Irish Examiner:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/powerful-men-accused-of-crimes-against-women-should-fail-at-the-box-office-445543.html

It's behind a paywall, but the headline is enough: "LOUISE O'NEILL: Powerful men, accused of crimes against women, should fail at the box office"

Key word here is "accused". Apparently the concepts of due process and innocent until proven guilty are concepts LoN hasn't come across, or just doesn't ideologically agree with.

Honestly, this is exactly the kind of "privilege" feminists go on about - of course she can advocate for taking away a guy's happiness and livelihood based on an unproven allegation, because as a woman it will never happen to her. Society only throws due process out the window when men are accused of doing something wrong.

On her show about rape, she looked horrified when the (I think it was) barrister was explaining basically your innocent till proven guilty and she basically wanted it the opposite way - This doesn't surprise me

hatrickpatrick

TheDavester wrote: »

On her show about rape, she looked horrified when the (I think it was) barrister was explaining basically your innocent till proven guilty and she basically wanted it the opposite way - This doesn't surprise me

I honestly wonder how she would react if somebody put it to her that the majority of teachers in Ireland are women, and that her policies would mean that they would instantly and automatically lose their jobs if somebody who didn't like them or had a personal grudge against them accused them of sexual assault. I have absolutely no doubt that she couldn't give a bollocks about innocent men's lives being ruined (to an SJW, there's no such thing as an innocent man - we're all guilty of rape and oppression by demographic association, after all) but would she also be willing to throw women under the bus for the sake of her toxic ideology?

red ears

I never read her articles and at this stage i'm a bit sick of the attention she is getting. She is clearly a troll and we are all helping with the clicks and therefore with her livelihood. Its Louise herself who should be getting boycotted.

hatrickpatrick

red ears wrote: »

I never read her articles and at this stage i'm a bit sick of the attention she is getting. She is clearly a troll and we are all helping with the clicks and therefore with her livelihood. Its Louise herself who should be getting boycotted.

I've been debating this. Fundamentally I wholeheartedly disagree with no-platforming and denying people a right to air those opinions - better IMO than threatening the Irish Times and others with a lack of readership if they publish her, would be to demand that for every anti-male article they publish from a pseudo-feminist, they publish an anti-feminist article by an MRA. And the key word here is anti-feminist, not anti-woman - show these peoples' hypocrisy for what it is by playing entirely the ball and never the woman, even though they will play the man literally every time they write anything. They cannot possibly sustain any credibility once this hypocrisy has been exposed in this blatant manner.

RabbleRouser2k

TheDavester wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/842772226164310017/photo/1
Cries about rape culture and this Wow

You missed the article about her saying 'it's impossible for women to be sexist against men'...

Never mind, that in the court of law, it's all too possible.

I wonder if LoN has made any statement regarding how the UK courts will no longer allow rape victims to be cross-examined.
Now they will be allowed to give a pre-recorded statement.
I find this troubling-tbh-for both the defendant and the plaintiff/ prosecution. If the testimony is pre-recorded, a rape accuser (sorry if that language is too strong, I just mean someone who accuses another of the crime of rape-I'm not saying they are lying) will obviously forget details of the crime. It's just human error, our memory's aren't perfect. One unmentioned/ forgotten detail, and the accused can leap on that, and thus create questions as to whether the person is lying or not. Likewise, if the accuser is lying, but the defendant cannot question them-then one can claim that the trial is clearly biased. I see it causing more problems than good, tbh.

osarusan

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I wonder if LoN has made any statement regarding how the UK courts will no longer allow rape victims to be cross-examined.
Now they will be allowed to give a pre-recorded statement.

Not correct, they will still be cross-examined by the defence lawyer. It will not happen in the courtroom - instead, the video of the cross-examination will be played for the jury.

Outlaw Pete

ivytwine wrote: »

I take your point but I think we're at risk of overstating LON etc and the NWCI's actual influence on society.

Are we? Cause I think if anything their influence is understated.

You initially said:

..most women who I know who identify as feminists are actually fairly normal people..

..which I don't doubt for a second by the way. Indeed most women that I know that identify as a feminist would be the same..... but they are not the feminists that people like Camile Paglia (and others) are complaining about.

You suggest that we might be overstating the influence of NWCI and LON (etc) but I don't agree, as they are the ones with the floor, the ear of the Government, and that are regularly being given platforms (paid for by the tax payer). Your friends are not (nor mine) and so it's neither here nor there that most women who identify as feminist are moderate as they're not the ones trying (and oftentimes succeeding) to poison the well. Which is precisely what the Christina Hoff Sommers' book 'Who Stole Feminism?' is all about.

What has changed really? The consent classes have been a flop.

The fact that they put them on is enough. Don't you think that being able to get even that far, given that they are a minority, shows that they have a disproportionate amount of leverage?

As for young women... yes that's definitely a factor. But most I think, are like myself, able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the minority of those who can't are just immature IMO. When I was 18 I used to believe the most ridiculous things about gender and I was terribly cynical and black and white. I'm glad twitter wasn't around! Life happened and I grew up.

True, but some don't evolve and mature when it comes to their outlook. There are lots that hold tight to the views they formed in their teens and 20's. You only have to look around at western society today to see how much radical feminism in the 70's, 80's and 90's effected society and so why should we think any different about the so called feminism of today having any less of an effect?

Also the reason LON etc are given their platform in the media is because newspapers are desperate for readers and clicks. They know these articles will get people talking, and reasonable positions just don't. It's unfortunately a complete mess media wise at the moment. I used to edit for a website and some of my favourite writers who were measured and reasonable (on all sorts of topics, not just politics) didn't draw engagement the way more controversial articles did. Even if they were often not as well written.

Well, obviously editors are giving LON a platform to garner readers, but I don't see how that somehow means that her views are not been taken seriously, or that she is not having an influence with how young girls see themselves and young men. Of course they are. That she is click bait doesn't negate that. Click bait is just another way to shove propaganda down people's throats as anything that has gone before it. Perhaps one of the most powerful today in fact given that young people tend to have the attention span of a goldfish.

hatrickpatrick

One only has to look at issues such as introduction of mandatory consent classes in universities, the blatantly and revoltingly one sided approach Twitter is taking towards harassment and hate speech, and the number of people whose reputations are being destroyed and who are being singled out for condemnation by allegation, in the total absence of conviction, to understand just how serious the SJW influence on society has become.

A rather laughable example is 2016. 2016 began with a man convicted f sexual assault (Steven Avery) being widely acquitted by social media because the liberal establishment told people to, while at the same time a man who has never been convicted of anything (Dr Luke) was pronounced guilty all over social media and demanded that part of his livelihood (his contractual entitlement to some of Kesha's musical royalties) be torn up and thrown out all because he had been accused - by somebody with an j virus monetary interest in such an accusation - of sexual assault.

Whether you're male or female, put yourself in the position of being innocent of that crime, but told that you should have millions of dollars which you have worked hard for taken away even though a judge has specifically found the allegations against you to be without merit. That's the reality of the society people like LoN are attempting to create.

RabbleRouser2k

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One only has to look at issues such as introduction of mandatory consent classes in universities, the blatantly and revoltingly one sided approach Twitter is taking towards harassment and hate speech, and the number of people whose reputations are being destroyed and who are being singled out for condemnation by allegation, in the total absence of conviction, to understand just how serious the SJW influence on society has become.

A rather laughable example is 2016. 2016 began with a man convicted f sexual assault (Steven Avery) being widely acquitted by social media because the liberal establishment told people to, while at the same time a man who has never been convicted of anything (Dr Luke) was pronounced guilty all over social media and demanded that part of his livelihood (his contractual entitlement to some of Kesha's musical royalties) be torn up and thrown out all because he had been accused - by somebody with an j virus monetary interest in such an accusation - of sexual assault.

Whether you're male or female, put yourself in the position of being innocent of that crime, but told that you should have millions of dollars which you have worked hard for taken away even though a judge has specifically found the allegations against you to be without merit. That's the reality of the society people like LoN are attempting to create.

True, that is the society they are trying to create-but then again, it's a society that is clearly being shown to be without merit.
And more and more individuals are fighting back against it.

I'll use the analogy of Scientology, even though I know feminism is not a cult/ religion (not yet, anyways). Scientology, even up until the late 90s/ early 2000's, I would argue, was seemingly untouchable. Like, you could not make a joke or a comment about it for fear of getting sued/ harassed etc. And then slowly but surely, it's power greatly waned-their poster boys, Tom Cruise and John Travolta, were mocked and derided-the South Park episode absolute tore shreds out of them, and more and more people left the cult-we saw folks like Paul Haggis, Jason Lee, and Nicole Kidman, to name a few, leaving-and many of them saw their lives get considerably better. And this is an organisation where people were afraid to even joke about em, to an organisation where jokes about em are commonplace. They were once the power players in hollywood, and are now that annoying rash that you rub cream to once in a while.

Feminism is much the same-when studios have catered to the SJW's (Ghostbusters) the films get absolutely no traction. None. Yet shows, and films, that don't cater to feminists-they gather traction over, and over, again. Game of Thrones gets all the 'feminists' complaining-yet every time, the ratings increase, the audiences grow-and no matter the complaining, nothing they say changes the show.
Also note, there are many female celebrities who are like 'no, I am not a feminist' such as Shailene Woodley, Carrie Underwood, Katy Perry, and Sarah Jessica PArker.
It's important to note that the 'consent' classes were pushed by the student union-the colleges gave no support to the classes whatsoever-it was SJW's at work.

When genuine rapes have occurred-within countries where there is a rape culture-nay, rape crisis-the feminists stay quiet. LoN said nothing about a few recent cases-and that says so much, tbh. There are genuine countries where we NEED to tackle the culture, genuinely. Yet feminists will not. And that's shocking, tbh. Yet when people do go there to actually challenge, and try to change the rape cultures of those countries, LoN and co will sit on their chairs and claim 'it was all their work'...yet they never left their keyboards.

deaddonkey15

TheDavester wrote: »

On her show about rape, she looked horrified when the (I think it was) barrister was explaining basically your innocent till proven guilty and she basically wanted it the opposite way - This doesn't surprise me

Ched Evans sat in jail for 2 years and had his name dragged through the mud before being found not guilty of rape. His alleged victim didn't even accuse him of rape apparently. Just goes to show how dangerous the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset is for someone that actually is falsely accused of rape.

RabbleRouser2k

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Ched Evans sat in jail for 2 years and had his name dragged through the mud before being found not guilty of rape. His alleged victim didn't even accuse him of rape apparently. Just goes to show how dangerous the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset is for someone that actually is falsely accused of rape.

Yeah, apparently googled 'was I raped'-which is disturbing that was not called into question.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149462/Brian-Banks-One-time-football-star-rape-charge-dismissed-years-prison-accuser-contacts-Facebook-say-happened.html

There was also this incident-a student who spent 6 years in prison for rape. When he was released, his accuser messaged him on facebook and added him as a friend-then said she wanted 'bygones to be bygones' and admitted he never raped her. She was caught on video saying the same thing, and thus his conviction was overturned. But his life is ruined-nay, destroyed. No matter what, people will say stuff like 'oh, he lied or claim 'internalised misogyny made her feel like he was innocent'. The accuser, Wanetta Gibson, said she wouldn't testify it was a lie, because her mom had sue his school, won 1.5 million, and didn't want to pay the money back...(a court case since has ruled she must repay 2.6 million dollars to the school).
Now, if we compare it to the Brock Turner case-Banks was given ALL the wrong advice by his lawyers, while Turner was wealthy and availed of a class based system.
Interestingly, Banks didn't cry 'white privilege'-and he could, oh golly he could have. But he did cite privliege-as in wealth based privilege.

“I would say it’s a case of privilege,” Banks said. “It seems like the judge based his decision on lifestyle. He’s lived such a good life and has never experienced anything serious in his life that would prepare him for prison. He was sheltered so much he wouldn’t be able to survive prison. What about the kid who has nothing, he struggles to eat, struggles to get a fair education? What about the kid who has no choice who he is born to and has drug-addicted parents or a non-parent household? Where is the consideration for them when they commit a crime?”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4233902/Inmates-rape-conviction-overturned-days-hes-killed.html

Or this case, where a guy was killed in prison due to a very disturbing method of conviction-an officer lied in order to gain a testimony out of him (claimed dna had been found, when it had not). And a nurse gave a testimony that 'a rape can occur without showing any signs of brusing or tearing'-she wasn't qualified to give testimony.
The person in question had his conviction overturned-but it was 4 days after he was beaten to death in prison. Now, I will admit-he wasn't exactly the nicest guy, he was on the sex offenders register, but it seems like they wanted a convction, even if he was innocent.

pumpkin4life

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-cruel-summer-ahead-with-no-female-festival-headliners-1.3016414

TheDavester

pumpkin4life wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-cruel-summer-ahead-with-no-female-festival-headliners-1.3016414

Will she/LON have a meltdown as there's no women in the Champions Leauge (I know theres a womens soccer one but id guess theyd hardly care or notice there is one)..ffs they really are reaching for problems

It is a sad life, and it leading to bitterness, and Mullally is on about gender quotas for a music festival if there were ever first world problems this is it. The process of music festivals such as this is to appeal to those who will pay big prices to go to acts they want to see, not what Una forces them to see.