Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

py2006

In my experience of todays so called feminists, very few of them know what the word equality means.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

You couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a simple question. I asked you a question. You wouldn’t answer it. You refuse to engage in a discussion when it’s directed towards you and you don’t like how it’s going. It’s hard to have a back and forth in that case.

So your answer when you feel like you can’t have a back and forth is to talk to someone like they’re an inmate at a prison?

LLMMLL

py2006 wrote: »

In my experience of todays so called feminists, very few of them know what the word equality means.

Well if you think like Omackeral does black people in the US should have shut up years ago once they attained legal equality. Dunno what they’re complaining about......

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well if you think like Omackeral does black people in the US should have shut up years ago once they attained legal equality. Dunno what they’re complaining about......

Yeah that’s what I said. You’ve jumped the shark now.

py2006

Anyway....

LON is totes off her head, yea?

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

Anyway....

LON is totes off her head, yea?

She’s not the only one!

py2006

Omackeral wrote: »

She’s not the only one!

Ah but sure life would be less colourful without them.

Boom_Bap

That's one heck of a comparison.

Blaas4life

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes and legal equality is not the only form of equality.

Some.are more equal.than others?

Rory28

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yes and legal equality is not the only form of equality.

Explain this please? What else is there?

py2006

Was it LON or Una Mullally that said women were a minority group in Ireland?

Boom_Bap

Rory28 wrote: »

Explain this please? What else is there?

There's the legalities, and there is the actuality of being treated equal.

Rory28

Boom_Bap wrote: »

There's the legalities, and there is the actuality of being treated equal.

Cant legislate assh0les. Since the SSM referendum I consider myself on equal footing with everyone in this country. That does not mean I dont accept that their are people in this country who still hate what I am but they are free to do so as long they dont legally discriminate against me or other gay people.

Equality does not mean people have to be nice to you.

LLMMLL

Rory28 wrote: »

Cant legislate assh0les. Since the SSM referendum I consider myself on equal footing with everyone in this country. That does not mean I dont accept that their are people in this country who still hate what I am but they are free to do so as long they dont legally discriminate against me or other gay people.

Equality does not mean people have to be nice to you.

So for example, after decriminalisation in 1993 did you feel gay people were equal to straight people apart from the obvious legal issues such as marriage.

For instance would you have been as confident in 1994 that gardai would have fully investigated a gay bashing in as thorough a manner as an assault on a straight person?

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

So for example, after decriminalisation in 1993 did you feel gay people were equal to straight people apart from the obvious legal issues such as marriage.

For instance would you have been as confident in 1994 that gardai would have fully investigated a gay bashing in as thorough a manner as an assault on a straight person?

Newsflash.. it's 2018

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Yeah that’s what I said. You’ve jumped the shark now.

So your point on asking about current legal inequalities is not to suggest that legal inequalities are all that should matter to feminists?

If not that then what is your point?

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Newsflash.. it's 2018

Well that went straight over your head.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well that went straight over your head.

Nope, the completely ridiculous , flawed comparison you used seems to have gone over yours.

Continue to keep digging, it's most amusing.

upandcumming

LLMMLL wrote: »

So for example, after decriminalisation in 1993 did you feel gay people were equal to straight people apart from the obvious legal issues such as marriage.

For instance would you have been as confident in 1994 that gardai would have fully investigated a gay bashing in as thorough a manner as an assault on a straight person?

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well that went straight over your head.

Alot of people wouldn't have been confident of alot of things 25 fucking years ago. Such a ridiculous question.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Nope, the completely ridiculous , flawed comparison you used seems to have gone over yours.

Continue to keep digging, it's most amusing.

How is it a flawed comparison? If legal equality is the only one that matters then a gay person in 1994 should have been happy enough. Black people in the US should have no issues.

We both know that legal equality is only a part of equality. Your snark doesn’t change that.

LLMMLL

upandcumming wrote: »

Alot of people wouldn't have been confident of alot of things 25 fucking years ago. Such a ridiculous question.

Some examples please?

Rory28

LLMMLL wrote: »

So for example, after decriminalisation in 1993 did you feel gay people were equal to straight people apart from the obvious legal issues such as marriage.

For instance would you have been as confident in 1994 that gardai would have fully investigated a gay bashing in as thorough a manner as an assault on a straight person?

No but I didnt say that. I said the Same Sex Marriage referendum.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well if you think like Omackeral does black people in the US should have shut up years ago once they attained legal equality. Dunno what they’re complaining about......

Can you give me some current examples of how women in Ireland are discriminated against in the same way that black people in the US are discriminated against.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you think that your shouty, angry writing style intimidates anyone or supports your point at all? Just curious.

Omackeral wrote: »

You couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a simple question. I asked you a question. You wouldn’t answer it.

I have found as a very general thing that Men™ and Women™ tend to argue slightly differently. At the extremes of that curve Men™ tend to be more direct, more combative and seek to "win" debates, Women™ tend to be more indirect, more deflective, less directly combative and seek consensus through persuasion. Men™ generally are less concerned with being in step with consensus, Women™ tend to be more concerned about it. When extremes of that butt into one another wires get crossed and both sides get frustrated. EG Women™ are much more likely to see a direct question about their position as aggressive, even directly aggressive towards them, Men™ are more likely to see a teasing out of consensus as deflective and just as frustrating. Now it is a curve and there is a lot of overlap, but that's been my experience anyway.

I noticed it here on Boards, in both the Ladies Lounge and the Gentleman's Club. I modded both so had more overall interest than most. In tLL there was more examples of a poster just giving their angle on a matter and being listened to(if ignored as a debate position), whereas in tGC there was more examples of "hang on, what do you mean by that?" going on. The difference was stark when it came to more personal stories. tLL was more into listening, maybe throw in a few thanks, tGC was more about following posters enquiring further and commenting/trying to "fix" the problem as they saw it.

I have found that in my own life too. When it came to personal problems or hard times in my life. Women mates lead with support and advice comes secondary, men mates are more likely to see advice as support.

Rory28 wrote: »

Equality does not mean people have to be nice to you.

+1000 That is something of late that is missed by too many. This notion that respect is a given, both for the person and their position. It is not, respect is earned, it's an active, not passive state. Manners should be a given.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Can you give me some current examples of how women in Ireland are discriminated against in the same way that black people in the US are discriminated against.

I don’t think women in Ireland are discriminated against in the same way as black peoplein the US are.

I do think that legal inequality does not mean full equality.

So you’re free to believe that women in Ireland have no social issues to campaign on.

However, criticising feminism by asking for examples of legal inequalities is nonsense. That’s where the comparison with black and gay people come in.

Outlaw Pete

upandcumming wrote: »

Alot of people wouldn't have been confident of alot of things 25 fucking years ago. Such a ridiculous question.

Indeed. Myself and a few mates were chased by some SKA heads back around then, just cause they seen we were metal fans. On our way to see Slayer in the Top Hat we was. Gave us a good few slaps, but more annoyingly, ripped my Dirty Deeds back patch of me sleeveless denim. You took your life in your hands being a 'long hair' back in those days. Not like today's more enlightened times at all.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don’t think women in Ireland are discriminated against in the same way as black peoplein the US are.

I do think that legal inequality does not mean full equality.

So you’re free to believe that women in Ireland have no social issues to campaign on.

However, criticising feminism by asking for examples of legal inequalities is nonsense. That’s where the comparison with black and gay people come in.

Ok. So bringing up black people in the US was a deflection. No worries.

So can you tell me about the social issues in Ireland where women are oppressed or face discrimination? Leave aside anything to do with rape or sexual assault as I think that's been covered extensively here. I am genuinely curious because I can't think of any but maybe that's because I'm a straight white male and a foreigner.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Ok. So bringing up black people in the US was a deflection. No worries.

So can you tell me about the social issues in Ireland where women are oppressed or face discrimination? Leave aside anything to do with rape or sexual assault as I think that's been covered extensively here. I am genuinely curious because I can't think of any but maybe that's because I'm a straight white male and a foreigner.

No it wasn’t a deflection. Bringing up a lack of legal inequalities as a criticism of feminism is based on the flawed idea that once a group is legally equal there is nothin cleft to campaign for. I used the plight of black people in the US to show that this is a ridiculous idea. Legal equality does not mean full equality. Once that idea has been demolished I can then bring it back to feminism to show that legal inequality for women does not mean full equality. How is that a deflection?

So you want examples of oppression/discrimination but don’t want to hear about the main ones? Riiiiiight.

El_Duderino 09

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. LON is having these discussions on national newspapers, Tv, radio, books and stage productions. Of course she has social influence. Posting on boards is good, but it’s not the same as LON’s platform. She’s in a position to really impact the public debate and contribute her ideas to it. Posting on boards is good but it’s hardly comparable to LON’s platform.

LOL. You're saying Louise's platform is greater than posting on Boards? Yeah, who said it wasn't? :P

Look, LON and the feminists get things done. They lobby successfully you acknowledged that in your post above. Arguing against them is grand but it isn’t the same as actually agitating FOR changes you want.

Of course it's not the same, who is saying it is? You appear to be arguing with yourself.

As I said above the biggest problem and the first issue id like to see addressed is the law that only recognises men as capable of rape.

Seems to be something which you feel strong about, so what have you done thus far about it?

But instead we’re discussing consent and how to revamp the sex education. That’s directly because of the work LON and her peers are doing to push for consent education.

Yes, but again, don't see anyone suggesting that isn't the case. You seem to think if people disagree with her then that somehow means they think she isn't having the effect she desires to, but that's far from the case. Unfortunately she may very well have an negative effect, and along with the NWCI, influence some legislative change in the area of consent. Is that what you're looking for someone to concede? Well, there you go. Doesn't make her right though.

The feminists picked that battlefield, and they are achieving their victory. It’s impossible to deny. It’s actually happening right now.

Again with this battlefield nonsense. You might not realise it but you are actually making a case for LON just using consent as a way of getting at men when you speak this way.

It seems every second poster thinks she has influence and she’s a muppet, or she has influence but she’s wrong. Or she’s got an unchallenged multimedia national platform but still has influence like a local drunk raving outside the library.

She definitely has influence. Not bad for such a big eejit,

I suppose it has completely slipped your notice that I haven’t said I agree with anything she says. I haven’t said I like her or I think she’s right. I have said repeatedly that she successfully gets her message out. And the feminists are getting her message out and causing changes in society culture and law. Good work, eh.

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

I apologise that should have been made clearer - that's in relation to domestic violence.

Well, it really depends on what statistics or research you're basing all this on. Note: I am not saying that men are abused more than women. They're not. However, admissions from the police, and government services within the last decade show that the statistics that people have been using regarding Domestic abuse are inaccurate.

When it comes to Police responding to a domestic abuse/assault claim, in most cases, the male is assumed to be the aggressor even when:

a) the male is the one calling the police
b) there are witnesses (including children) to say that the woman was the aggressor
c) the only physical damage done has been to the male, and the female hasn't a scratch on her.

In each of these situations, the police policy was to bring in the male for questioning, and in the absence of proof (that was acceptable to them) the male would be charged. Hence, adding to the statistics.

Then, another angle is that society has a stigma against males who make claims about sexual abuse or physical abuse from a female. Police have admitted to dismissing claims of abuse, and not reporting/recording claims made in the past.

And then there's the research into relationships among teens, where it has been found that quite often violence is reciprocal, and there are higher percentages of females involved in non-reciprocal violence than previously believed. Stands to reason that the changes in our society regarding womens rights, would change the behavior of women in relationships, especially when they believe that the male would have a social crutch against defending himself. The idea that it's always wrong to hit a woman is still a very strong influence on the development males.

Who is sending men to die in wars? Not women.

Sure, they are. Women have been in many government positions for decades, and women hold posts in the military. The US has tens of thousands of women serving in the armed forces, as analysts whose jobs decide where troops are sent to serve. Women have also been serving in the Intelligence communities for quite a long time.

There are plenty of women in police forces & armies? Seeing as they were only given that option relatively recently it's hardly surprising that there are less of them.

No. They were "recently" (well over a decade now) given the chance to serve in combat environments. Women have been serving in administrative, support or leadership roles for decades, and in some armed forces back to WW2.