Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Oh yeah-even in college I met the 'creepy' fellows-like, seriously creepy. One was dating a student, despite him A) being her lecturer, being in a relationship, C) old enough to be her dad and D) being told to stop by her parents. Conflict of interest and all that. (Funnily enough, he had ALOT of female admirers-in the teenage category. I was jealous, if I'm honest-many of em were hawt).

In short-Oh I well believe it-trust me. When it comes to positions of power, certain traits tend to get you to that position-but sometimes, there are 'additional' elements to those figures-the creepy kind of element. (not always, just sometimes-othertimes they are a 'take no crap' kind of person)-I've known some idiots who for some bizarre reason seem to think they are 'hot'-and yet give em advise-like 'that software program won't work on a pc, or a mac'-and they are oblivious...until tech support/ they try it, and discover that yeah-it's not possible (and said software program will cost a couple of grand, easy).

On the other hand-I've heard stories of things like 'got a degree in journalism, operating the teleprompter so some numpty without his/ her Leaving Cert can read the text'...and yeah, it's not uncommon.

I do know of one presenter, local radio station, who married a total douchebag-despite ALL warnings from her friends/ family, that this guy was a db. Well, she gets pregnant shortly after, has the kid...then finds out he has a girlfriend and a new born...the were barely together over a year. (He was not in radio). She always got the usual 'boy, you're hot' on the radio comments-maybe she believed her hype, but some folks in radio don't tend to be too bright.

I'm really confused about the last bit with the female radio presenter and her two timing boyfriend. Were people telling her she was hot, as in attractive, or good at her job? What does it have to do with the cheating boyfriend?:eek:

DEFTLEFTHAND

goose2005 wrote: »

Actually the women's section of Limerick Prison is pretty unpleasant

As are all men prisons. Hopefully the Dochas at Mountjoy can strive to match up to Limerick. Maybe we can create a national standard.

A prisons function is to serve as a punishment and a deterrent to crime. It's not supposed to be a nice place.

Absolam

I always thought the goal was to rehabilitatie criminals rather than punish them.

RabbleRouser2k

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm really confused about the last bit with the female radio presenter and her two timing boyfriend. Were people telling her she was hot, as in attractive, or good at her job? What does it have to do with the cheating boyfriend?:eek:

Oh, sorry, total bizarre rant-I hadn't had my coffee.

She, the presente, was often complimented on her looks-ie 'boy, you're hot' etc. And tbf, she was pretty. Just rather annoying tho.
Anyways, my mentioning her looks was sort of down to a rather noticable trait I see sometimes with the 'wow, he/ she's hot' thing-ie they think that looks will sustain a relationship. She was much the same, even thinking a baby will keep him around.
And it didn't.

Zulu

Absolam wrote: »

I always thought the goal was to rehabilitatie criminals rather than punish them.

Pffft, ah come on now will you; pull the other one.

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Oh, sorry, total bizarre rant-I hadn't had my coffee.

She, the presente, was often complimented on her looks-ie 'boy, you're hot' etc. And tbf, she was pretty. Just rather annoying tho.
Anyways, my mentioning her looks was sort of down to a rather noticable trait I see sometimes with the 'wow, he/ she's hot' thing-ie they think that looks will sustain a relationship. She was much the same, even thinking a baby will keep him around.
And it didn't.

You should see what I write before coffee

Yes, that makes sense.

Sometimes on Boards threads, wen a woman with a problematic personality trait is being discussed, people ask ''but is she hot?' or ''how hot is she?''. It's not a great basis for a relationship. As someone's granny used to say ''looks fade, personality lasts forever''

And there are a lot of people who are fortunate to have a good combination of both..

hatrickpatrick

Widdershins wrote: »

And there are a lot of people who are fortunate to have a good combination of both..

I disagree, we're a rarer breed than you'd think.

mzungu

Absolam wrote: »

I always thought the goal was to rehabilitatie criminals rather than punish them.

According to conservative estimates, nearly half will reoffend within three years of release (80% in the first 12 months after release). The rehabilitation side of things needs a bit more attention.

Woodhenge

Absolam wrote: »

I always thought the goal was to rehabilitatie criminals rather than punish them.

If that were the case then people in poverty with addictions or mental health issues who need rehabilitation would find the best way to access it is to commit serious crime.

You have to ensure that the result of a life of crime is significantly worse than an honest life spent scraping the barrel or the whole system is in danger. Punishment is not only to prevent people from causing crime but also to demonstrate to those who don't commit crime that they made the better choice.

They have actually run experiments that show that when people who cheat and steal are actively punished, co-operation and solidarity in the wider community increases. When crime is not punished effectively, people trust each other less and are less willing to make small sacrifices that make living among strangers tolerable.

Absolam

So is the general view that our justice system is supposed to be a punitive one then? It seems at odds with the fact that prisoners aren't being tortured or even given hard labour. Should we be agitating to dial up the unpleasantness in our prisons?

HamsterFace

The justice system has three roles; to punish, to protect (citizens), and also to rehabilitate.

Absolam

Surely those are amongst the sanctions available to the justice system, rather than its purpose? Punishment, rehabilitation, incapacitation, deterrence, and reparation would all seem to be legitimate penalties that can be imposed on criminals.

Is it possible that focussing on punishment as we're seeing on the thread feeds into the development of a rape culture narrative? Absent the prospect of revenge, would we see less spurious (or only by the most liberal of definitions) accusations of rape? Notwithstanding the absolute necessity to deter rape in the first place.

oneilla

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Guys this is a bit of a disparity-completely. A few drinks is fine, absolutely-like, have a few beers, go on a date, ask her or him back to yours...that's no problem. The law will not be used or apply there. Lowered inhibitions vs 'cannot even spell their own name' are two different things.

On the other hand, if the person is so drunk they can barely string a few sentences together...well, that is what the law will cover. Even those who should have been more biased on the Pat Kenny chat stated it just underlines what is already there. The problem arose, before, when it came to consent-like, people would look at the 'drunk' person-and say 'okay, did they have so much alcohol in them that they couldn't even sign their name...then if so, sex with them was rape'.

How many drinks/how much alcohol consumed before I cannot give consent? What's the blood alcohol content limit?

please helpThank YOU

oneilla wrote: »

How many drinks/how much alcohol consumed before I cannot give consent? What's the blood alcohol content limit?

Some People get Drunk on less than a pint of beer.

RabbleRouser2k

oneilla wrote: »

How many drinks/how much alcohol consumed before I cannot give consent? What's the blood alcohol content limit?

There's no limit, but if the person is so clearly intoxicated she cannot stand, then that will mean no consent was given. Ditto if she is on drugs.
The bill will also increase conviction for cases of incest, such as sexual abuse, or molestation, by a female so that they are in line with those of a male.

That said, I would argue it doesn't go far enough. It doesn't cover things like rape of a man by a woman, it doesn't go into too much depth of the rape of a man by another man. If a guy is so drunk he doesn't remember, yeah, it causes issues there-but that is where CCTv comes in.
So if it does go to court, the guy will have to do a lot of work to prove he was not involved in any sex crime.

please helpThank YOU

I know a Chinese Lady occasional has a few beers and she is so drunk afterwards just 3 bottles of beers .

please helpThank YOU

Women taking drugs before the go out to the pub/nightclub and say the had two beers where does the Law stand here?

Widdershins

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

I know a Chinese Lady occasional has a few beers and she is so drunk afterwards just 3 bottles of beers .

Very true, it can go to your head that bit quicker if you're physically smaller built.

It doesn't sound like the worst law in the world in some ways. In other ways it seems awful, and worrying for men.

I would have been one who was too drunk to think straight and regretted an encounter afterwards, still do many years later, never felt it was rape or assault or anything like that, I have been through that also, but I do feel pi**ed off that I was taken advantage of, it wasn't exactly gentlemanly (he was sober as a judge and knew I was scuttered drunk, he was supporting me as we exited the building because I couldn't stay upright amongst other things).No protection used, I was very lucky there was no negative repercussions from it. Apart from the shame! Personally I never considered it rape but I guess under THIS definition it would be. There are probably worse situations than mine where the new law is appropriate, though.


I was a teenager at that time and at least fifteen years younger than him

please helpThank YOU

Widdershins wrote: »

Very true, it can go to your head that bit quicker if you're physically smaller built.

It doesn't sound like the worst law in the world in some ways. In other ways it seems awful, and worrying for men.

I would have been one who was too drunk to think straight and regretted an encounter afterwards, still do many years later, never felt it was rape or assault or anything like that, I have been through that also, but I do feel pi**ed off that I was taken advantage of, it wasn't exactly gentlemanly (he was sober as a judge and knew I was scuttered drunk, he was supporting me as we exited the building because I couldn't stay upright amongst other things).No protection used, I was very lucky there was no negative repercussions from it. Apart from the shame! Personally I never considered it rape but I guess under THIS definition it would be. There are probably worse situations than mine where the new law is appropriate, though.

VERY True what you saying here this would be now be considered rape in the eyes of the law. but most Men/Women would have sex when they having be drinking drunk/ on Drugs now the way law is the Jails backed out with Men . who had sex with Women when they where drunk/Drugs. what is the Drink Industry saying about this I would love one of them to make a comment and have the done a Safety Campaign on this law like put up posters in pubs/nightclubs.?

RabbleRouser2k

Widdershins wrote: »

Very true, it can go to your head that bit quicker if you're physically smaller built.

It doesn't sound like the worst law in the world in some ways. In other ways it seems awful, and worrying for men.

I would have been one who was too drunk to think straight and regretted an encounter afterwards, still do many years later, never felt it was rape or assault or anything like that, I have been through that also, but I do feel pi**ed off that I was taken advantage of, it wasn't exactly gentlemanly (he was sober as a judge and knew I was scuttered drunk, he was supporting me as we exited the building because I couldn't stay upright amongst other things).No protection used, I was very lucky there was no negative repercussions from it. Apart from the shame! Personally I never considered it rape but I guess under THIS definition it would be. There are probably worse situations than mine where the new law is appropriate, though.


I was a teenager at that time and at least fifteen years younger than him

Yeah, plus if, say, you drink on an empty stomach or some medicine interacts badly (even a panadol or aspirin, for example) you can get intoxicated after one or two drinks. I know in one situation a friend of mine got sick after nurofen and beer-and thus she was sick as a dog. Her friends were there tho, and they just walked it off with her.
On the other hand, I've had a situation where I had a bad reaction to alcohol and lempsip-ended up puking everywhere after drinking. (both occasions, her and mine, we took those of our own accord). No spiking involved.

It helps in some ways-ie incest and sexual abuse, but in others it doesn't at all. Also, if a guy is drunk and he gets assaulted, a particularly sinister woman who had done the assault, and had been drinking, could claim 'no, he raped me'. IT would be very difficult to disprove.

(Very sorry to hear about your rape, the one that you said was rape I mean-I am sorry that happened to you.)
As far as the guy being drunk-it could be statutory. But at the least, yeah, it was morally wrong on his part.
I've seen girls really drunk-I think the most any one I know would do, with a girl with a few drinks in her, is snog em.
But that's it-never anything else. Maybe get her phone number, nothing that would lead you to a crime.

drugstore cowboy

Dunno if this has been posted and don't have time to check back but it seems LON has been caught rotten.

She said this recently

Most recently, we discussed the ethical subtext of going to see Manchester By The Sea, the movie which won Casey Affleck an Oscar for best actor at this year’s Academy Awards.

Despite rave reviews, I refused to see it due to two sexual harassment cases that had been brought against Affleck by a female producer, Amanda White, and director of photography, Magdalena Gorka, both of whom had worked with Affleck on a previous project.

The allegations were extensive and disturbing, ranging from a daily diet of highly sexualised, offensive comments, abusive texts messages when White refused to have sex with Affleck, to physical intimidation where Gorka claimed she woke in the middle of the night to find Affleck lying in bed next to her.

The cases were settled for undisclosed terms out of court in 2010..

Since I was aware of this story, I felt that going to see the film would be a betrayal of my feminist principles.

And this from a recent interview she gave

The movie you always rewatch?

LON: Heathers is so wonderfully quotable. ‘**** me gently with a chainsaw’ is my favourite line ever.

Somebody went and found this in a few seconds

In 1997, Slater was convicted of assaulting his then-girlfriend, Michelle Jonas, and a police officer while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. He spent over 100 days in a rehabilitation facility while out on bail and then was sentenced to a three-month term in jail followed by three months in a residential rehab center.

On May 24, 2005, Slater was arrested in Manhattan, New York, after he allegedly sexually harassed a woman on the street. A video of Slater being arrested was recorded and shown on television. Slater was charged with third degree sexual abuse and was held at the 19th precinct in Manhattan.

The charges seemed to have been dropped and he was told to stay out of trouble but Mr Slater ain't no man a feminist like LON should like.Keep up the struggle Louise :cool:

Outlaw Pete

Tbf (not that I think LON deserves anyone being fair to her in this regard) but her point is that she believes men who are charged with, or alleged to be guilty of, sexual crimes deserve to fail at the box office and so she encourages boycotting their films to achieve that aim.

Heathers was back in '89 (IMDB says '88 but I'm sure I brought one of my first girlfriends to it then - awww) and so her no longer saying she likes it wouldn't effect how it (and he) did financially and so a retrospective boycott would be pointless.

Not saying she's right to believe the nonsense she does now... boycotting films when someone hasn't been found guilty of anything is absurd. 'Settled out of court' means nothing when you're famous either. Can sometimes just be a decision made to avoid damage to reputation and/or a lengthy trial. Not always of course but enough times to make boycotting the work of any celebs who take that route an absurdity.

RabbleRouser2k

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Tbf (not that I think LON deserves anyone being fair to her in this regard) but her point is that she believes men who are charged with, or alleged to be guilty of, sexual crimes deserve to fail at the box office and so she encourages boycotting their films to achieve that aim.

Heathers was back in '89 (IMDB says '88 but I'm sure I brought one of my first girlfriends to it then - awww) and so her no longer saying she likes it wouldn't effect how it (and he) did financially and so a retrospective boycott would be pointless.

Not saying she's right to believe the nonsense she does now... boycotting films when someone hasn't been found guilty of anything is absurd. 'Settled out of court' means nothing when you're famous either. Can sometimes just be a decision made to avoid damage to reputation and/or a lengthy trial. Not always of course but enough times to make boycotting the work of any celebs who take that route an absurdity.

Normally I would agree-but Slater has had films in cinemas since, such as Nymphomaniac volumes 1 and 2, and Igor, and appearances on Phineas and Ferb, among other, noteworthy, tv shows.

However, what is also noteworthy is that she doesn't give a mention to the Irish folks-Michael Fassbender is accused of violence towards a woman-which I find questionable since the charges were dropped and she returned to dating him too. LoN didn't give him a mention-cos he's Irish, or good looking, perhaps?
I also note she didn't accidentally libel herself-mentioning the usual suspects like Sean Penn-who was accused of abusing Madonna. Something Madonna recently stated never happened.

Anyways. LoN has said that the accusation is enough-not the court of law, but rather the guilty until proven innocent rule of thumb feminists seem to go for. And even then being found innocent doesn't count unless the judge is either a woman, or a minority.

LoN specifically mentioned Depp-and Depp has never been charged with anything related to domestic violence. That said, Amber was.arrested for hitting her ex-never mentioned that, eh LoN?
Gibson was charged, yes-and reached a plea deal.
But for LoN-that is not enough. Nobody is redeemed in her eyes. I will say, to me, a rapist cannot be redeemed-they are beyond redemption, tbh.

She failed, at the time, to mention folks like Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, or Tupac who were far from white, yet committed alleged crimes of rape, child molestation, and rape. (Tupac did time in jail for the last one).
But they were all highly successful afterwards.

red ears

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

LoN specifically mentioned Depp-and Depp has never been charged with anything related to domestic violence. That said, Amber was.arrested for hitting her ex-never mentioned that, eh LoN?
.

That's a bit of an eye opener, generally a violent domestic abuser repeats the crime. I'd imagine she was violent to depp.

please helpThank YOU

Brian Bank pro football player in the united states falsely accused of rape crime. You can see the picture of this grown man cry that is hurt in this man eyes.

Smegmaniac17

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hog9Nlf-dRs

Any thoughts on this video folks???

please helpThank YOU

The list of people false accused of rape and other crimes is Staggering here is a small sample list of people who have been wronged by this rape culture Louis O Neill talks about. Cliff Ricard, Michael Le Vell ,Lord Leon Brittan, Jim Davidson, Ched Evans, Prime Minister Sir, Edward Heath, Nigel Evans MP, Lord Bramell , William Roache, Freddie Starr, DJ Neil Fox,. and for some Men its to much like Jay Cheshire hanged himself from a tree he could not cope /distraught over false rape accusations this Man is Dead .

mzungu

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

The list of people false accused of rape and other crimes is Staggering here is a small sample list of people who have been wrong by this rape culture Louis O Neill talks about. Cliff Ricard, Michael Le Vell ,Lord Leon Brittan, Jim Davidson, Ched Evans, Prime Minister Sir, Edward Heath, Nigel Evans MP, Lord Bramell , William Roache, Freddie Starr, DJ Neil Fox,. and for some Men its to much like Jay Cheshire hanged himself from a tree he could not cope /distraught over false rape accusations this Man is Dead .

I am not sure about the details of all the above cases, but I think some of them were wronged by an overzealous police force trying to make up for leaving Saville get away with it.

please helpThank YOU

mzungu wrote: »

I am not sure about the details of all the above cases, but I think some of them were wronged by an overzealous police force trying to make up for leaving Saville get away with it.

You are 100 per cent right what you say about Saville and the overzealous police
Cliff Ricard is Suing the BBC/Police. Cliff Ricard made a very good point if he was not Rich how does say working Man/Women defend them selves ?. like say example a bricklayer he would not have the money to clear his/her name in the courts our pay for the best Solicitors/Barrister like the police/Garda have against the Innocent Man/Women.

ligerdub

Pretty sure Heath was a true one.