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

Billy86

Holy **** this thread is still going? I don't bother with her and she sounds a right twat, but she's certainly getting a hell of a lot of ongoing free publicity from plenty on here.

yerwanthere123

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

Every time I see this thread re-emerge I always think "oh jesus, what's she said now".

Thankfully not the case this time!

She's been awfully quiet since she started dating that fella from Newstalk...

terryduff12

Dakota Brave Carrot wrote: »

She's been awfully quiet since she started dating that fella from Newstalk...

is he woke?

Muscles Schultz

Dakota Brave Carrot wrote: »

She's been awfully quiet since she started dating that fella from Newstalk...

Maybe that’s all she needed to settle her......a bit of regular pipe

El_Duderino 09

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Dakota Brave Carrot wrote: »

She's been awfully quiet since she started dating that fella from Newstalk...

Maybe that’s all she needed to settle her......a bit of regular pipe

Edgy 🙄

skooterblue2

Muscles Schultz wrote: »

Maybe that’s all she needed to settle her......a bit of regular pipe

Its good for a girl to have hobbies....

KrustyUCC

The latest from Louise

LOUISE O'NEILL: Why is it so impossible to understand when people ask you to use certain language to describe their lives, experiences, gender?

I was on the phone, going through my personal details. We came to the section about my relationship status, and the man asked if I was married, single, divorced, etc. I hesitated, saying: “I’m dating someone, does that count?”, and he answered, “don’t worry about your boyfriend, we’ll put you down as single for the purposes of this form.”

His use of the word ‘boyfriend’ registered with me. I could have been gay or bi-sexual and dating a woman. He assumed I was straight, because he assumed heterosexuality as the default position. That reminded me of a panel discussion on gender I took part in last year.

The other three participants were men (one of whom was a person of colour). The moderator was also a man.

In the waiting room before the panel began, an older woman struck up a conversation with me, even though I was trying to go through my notes at the time. Afterwards she apologised.

“I’m so sorry,” she said, “I didn’t realise you were a panellist.” She said she assumed I was this man’s wife, a man who is, incidentally, the same age as my own father. I was stunned. The one woman in the room, and it was assumed the only reason I could be there was because I was with a male partner.

Neither of these incidents might seem like a big deal to you. I certainly don’t believe that either party meant any harm; it was careless rather than malicious. I know some reading will roll their eyes at my perceived sensitivity for even writing about this; people who would have found themselves frustrated at the conversations last December around the language used in certain Christmas songs, or who felt affronted by the news that the HSE urged nurses and doctors to refrain from calling patients ‘love’ or ‘dear’.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/columnists/louise-oneill/why-is-it-so-impossible-to-understand-when-people-ask-you-to-use-certain-language-to-describe-their-lives-experiences-gender-895697.html

Birneybau

KrustyUCC wrote: »

The latest from Louise

LOUISE O'NEILL: Why is it so impossible to understand when people ask you to use certain language to describe their lives, experiences, gender?

I was on the phone, going through my personal details. We came to the section about my relationship status, and the man asked if I was married, single, divorced, etc. I hesitated, saying: “I’m dating someone, does that count?”, and he answered, “don’t worry about your boyfriend, we’ll put you down as single for the purposes of this form.”

His use of the word ‘boyfriend’ registered with me. I could have been gay or bi-sexual and dating a woman. He assumed I was straight, because he assumed heterosexuality as the default position. That reminded me of a panel discussion on gender I took part in last year.

The other three participants were men (one of whom was a person of colour). The moderator was also a man.

In the waiting room before the panel began, an older woman struck up a conversation with me, even though I was trying to go through my notes at the time. Afterwards she apologised.

“I’m so sorry,” she said, “I didn’t realise you were a panellist.” She said she assumed I was this man’s wife, a man who is, incidentally, the same age as my own father. I was stunned. The one woman in the room, and it was assumed the only reason I could be there was because I was with a male partner.

Neither of these incidents might seem like a big deal to you. I certainly don’t believe that either party meant any harm; it was careless rather than malicious. I know some reading will roll their eyes at my perceived sensitivity for even writing about this; people who would have found themselves frustrated at the conversations last December around the language used in certain Christmas songs, or who felt affronted by the news that the HSE urged nurses and doctors to refrain from calling patients ‘love’ or ‘dear’.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/columnists/louise-oneill/why-is-it-so-impossible-to-understand-when-people-ask-you-to-use-certain-language-to-describe-their-lives-experiences-gender-895697.html

It's massively larger than other orientations.

KrustyUCC

Birneybau wrote: »

It's massively larger than other orientations.

That's factual but how dare he assume

Vex Willems

So she gets offended by someone assuming her sexuality then uses the term a person of colour, what colour? Purple? And why did that need to be mentioned?

*groans*..

Hector Savage

KrustyUCC wrote: »

The latest from Louise

LOUISE O'NEILL: Why is it so impossible to understand when people ask you to use certain language to describe their lives, experiences, gender?

I was on the phone, going through my personal details. We came to the section about my relationship status, and the man asked if I was married, single, divorced, etc. I hesitated, saying: “I’m dating someone, does that count?”, and he answered, “don’t worry about your boyfriend, we’ll put you down as single for the purposes of this form.”

His use of the word ‘boyfriend’ registered with me. I could have been gay or bi-sexual and dating a woman. He assumed I was straight, because he assumed heterosexuality as the default position. That reminded me of a panel discussion on gender I took part in last year.

The other three participants were men (one of whom was a person of colour). The moderator was also a man.

In the waiting room before the panel began, an older woman struck up a conversation with me, even though I was trying to go through my notes at the time. Afterwards she apologised.

“I’m so sorry,” she said, “I didn’t realise you were a panellist.” She said she assumed I was this man’s wife, a man who is, incidentally, the same age as my own father. I was stunned. The one woman in the room, and it was assumed the only reason I could be there was because I was with a male partner.

Neither of these incidents might seem like a big deal to you. I certainly don’t believe that either party meant any harm; it was careless rather than malicious. I know some reading will roll their eyes at my perceived sensitivity for even writing about this; people who would have found themselves frustrated at the conversations last December around the language used in certain Christmas songs, or who felt affronted by the news that the HSE urged nurses and doctors to refrain from calling patients ‘love’ or ‘dear’.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/views/columnists/louise-oneill/why-is-it-so-impossible-to-understand-when-people-ask-you-to-use-certain-language-to-describe-their-lives-experiences-gender-895697.html

Jesus H Corpus Christie n Christ!

Even the most open minded gay rights activist surely understands that the majority of people are straight - what's the big deal here?

Then she brings "People of colour" into it ... ffs the irony is lost on these fools :rolleyes:

Why is "people of colour" ok and "coloured people" racist ?

How about just PEOPLE ... and never mind what fecking shade of skin they are!!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Vex Willems wrote: »

So she gets offended by someone assuming her sexuality then uses the term a person of colour, what colour? Purple? And why did that need to be mentioned?

I've no objection to using the phrase if requested by a person of colour, but requested by a white person, I merely point out that white is actually a colour itself...

(I've also come across black people who prefer the term black, for the record - and non-whites (mostly Asians) who feel the term is exclusionist. So, consistency, heh?!)

The Crowman

She drags up the Fairytale Of Newyork thing again, FFS!

ginandtonicsky

Someone assumed she was straight when most people are straight, shock horror.
Some dowdy out-of-touch aul wan though she was some older man's wife, stop the presses.

God she's clearly running out of interesting things to write about if she has to call upon the worn-out Fairy Tale of New York PC nonsense when the rest of the world got over that one weeks ago.

I also get the sense that now that she's no longer single, she's becoming one of those women who can't bear to not mention "my boyfriend" every five minutes, how very feminist of her.

El_Duderino 09

With just a few paragraphs she captured posters' imagination again. She never fails.

The LON appreciation thread had gone quiet over Christmas. Here's to another busy year on the thread. Cheers!

0cp71eyxkb94qf

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

With just a few paragraphs she captured posters' imagination again. She never fails.

The LON appreciation thread had gone quiet over Christmas. Here's to another busy year on the thread. Cheers!

You post more on this thread defending her than her detractors. Pathetic.

Billy86

Jaylen Damp Kindergarten wrote: »

She really is a vacuous moron.

Mire like the yin to katie Hopkins' yang... just blurts out the stupidest thing possible to generate "you won't believe what Louise said now!" controversy and generate publicity from it.

One of the clearest examples for Hopkins was saying kids who name their children after places are trash (or something to that effect) when her own daughter is called India. Louise doesn't seem any different.

The very worst thing anyone can do with regards to these eejits is to pay them even the slightest bit of attention. They're trolls - no more, no less.

its_steve116

Most. Pointless. Thread. Ever. Period.

Alrigghtythen

Vex Willems wrote: »

So she gets offended by someone assuming her sexuality then uses the term a person of colour, what colour? Purple? And why did that need to be mentioned?

LON NOT A RACIST
She once sat beside a black man

Charmeleon

Billy86 wrote: »

Mire like the yin to katie Hopkins' yang... just blurts out the stupidest thing possible to generate "you won't believe what Louise said now!" controversy and generate publicity from it.

One of the clearest examples for Hopkins was saying kids who name their children after places are trash (or something to that effect) when her own daughter is called India. Louise doesn't seem any different.

The very worst thing anyone can do with regards to these eejits is to pay them even the slightest bit of attention. They're trolls - no more, no less.

Hopkins is a professional troll, that’s her function in life. As a result she occasionally says something original. O’Neill merely regurgitates dogma that others have written about months or years before. She writes like none of her readers are on the internet.

its_steve116

its_steve116 wrote: »

Most. Pointless. Thread. Ever. Period.

lol coming from you mikey

its_steve116

Dakota Brave Carrot wrote: »

lol coming from you mikey

*Steve

Can we please just forget about this Z-lister who I had to Google? There are a lot of sad freaks obsessed with her on here (and judging by this threads popularity, I'd say many of them are from Cork).

nullzero

It must be comforting for LGBTQ people to know that Louise O'Neill is never too busy to be offended on their behalf.

Bunny Colvin

its_steve116 wrote: »

Most. Pointless. Thread. Ever. Period.

I unfollowed it months ago and just dropped in now for a quick read. I honestly haven't heard of her mentioned once since, she's very easy to avoid - which is what I'll be doing again. Bye now Louise, see ya!

Alrigghtythen

Alrigghtythen wrote: »

LON NOT A RACIST
She once sat beside a black man

she had an article a while back she was going to only read women of colour … thought she calmed down a bit once she got the fella....and as usual she has to get a cheap plug in for her book as well

its_steve116

its_steve116 wrote: »

*Steve

Can we please just forget about this Z-lister who I had to Google? There are a lot of sad freaks obsessed with her on here (and judging by this threads popularity, I'd say many of them are from Cork).

Yeah, your obsession with Dara Quilty, David Davin, Laura Whitmore, and your calling people obsessed.....

its_steve116

nullzero wrote: »

It must be comforting for LGBTQ people to know that Louise O'Neill is never too busy to be offended on their behalf.

The ones outside Cork probably don't even know who she is. I'm from Dublin, had to Google her... says it all really.

its_steve116

its_steve116 wrote: »

The ones outside Cork probably don't even know who she is. I'm from Dublin, had to Google her... says it all really.

what does that have to do with anything Mikey, heres a tip, you don't have to partake in every thread like you do in the radio forum ...go back to your Al Porter shrine

nullzero

Dakota Brave Carrot wrote: »

… thought she calmed down a bit once she got the fella...

If she's shopping on the "pleasant and inoffensive" aisle she might not be getting what she needs, or perhaps what she's asking for(pun intended).