Louise O Neill

mzungu · 02-08-2016 08:37PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Men will resist changing their man made structure though.
The women as chattel paradigm is probably still too well entrenched in the male subconscious, and the might is right instinct, of women as the slave and plaything of men, too inate for culture to override it in a short period. And women pay a high price as a result. A voice such a Louise, jumped on and ridiculed showing how strong the resistance still is.

The ideology of Louise O'Neill is critiqued. This does not equate to jumping on somebody. Ideas are there to be debated. I am sorry you view this as 'resistance' as I always thought it was part of healthy democratic discourse. But my god there is a hell of a lot of kool-aid in your post.

With the biggest economies in the world now having, or going to have a woman at the helm, does this not alter your worldview of patriarchal conspiracy?

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 08:41PM

JRant wrote: »

That's just picking one sector in an entire economy and saying "hay look, woman are discriminated against". It's a nonsense argument to make because it ignores everything else around it.

What about teaching?
Do you think that profession is inherently sexist against men because the vast majority of teachers are women?

Whether you realise it or not young men are now far more likely to be (positively) discriminated against than young women. Especially when talking about STEM industries where companies are falling over themselves to show how right on they are. Special women only training, fast track management programmes and mentoring are becoming the norm in these industries. All the while creating a sense of division that just wasn't there before HR clowns got their hands on the controls in an attempt to 'redress the balance'.

The NUI nonsense that is going on is just the start of the madness to follow. It's not enough to put in place the systems to allow more women to the top, it has to be done NOW. It's like the old saying "the beatings will continue until morale improves"

Less than a third of senior academic posts in Ireland’s universities and ITs held by women.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/women-under-represented-in-senior-university-posts-hea-finds-1.2024458
Ok, it's from December 2014, but I seriously doubt that the figures have changed dramatically in 18 months.

JRant · 02-08-2016 08:41PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Men will resist changing their man made structure though.
The women as chattel paradigm is probably still too well entrenched in the male subconscious, and the might is right instinct, of women as the slave and plaything of men, too inate for culture to override it in a short period. And women pay a high price as a result. A voice such a Louise, jumped on and ridiculed showing how strong the resistance still is.

It just shows a growing resistance to nonsense. If someone, male or female, wants to commit such no sense to paper then they are going to be called out on it more and more.

By the way, it's not just men pointing out the hypocrisy of her arguments, many women are also calling it for what it is.

The strongest person I ever met was my grandmother, she had an iron will and determination and wouldn't stand for the nonsense these so called feminists come out with.

Birneybau · 02-08-2016 08:41PM

mzungu wrote: »

The ideology of Louise O'Neill is critiqued. This does not equate to jumping on somebody. Ideas are there to be debated. I am sorry you view this as 'resistance' as I always thought it was part of healthy democratic discourse. But my god there is a hell of a lot of kool-aid in your post.

With the biggest economies in the world now having, or going to have a woman at the helm, does this not alter your worldview of patriarchal conspiracy?

Yeah, but, 'the women as chattel' paradigm!

02-08-2016 08:45PM

JRant wrote: »

That's just picking one sector in an entire economy and saying "hay look, woman are discriminated against". It's a nonsense argument to make because it ignores everything else around it.

No, it's one example that popped into my mind, because I happen to have read an article on that topic recently. I didn't claim it applies across the board, although I'll bet you;ll find the similar statistics in law, medicine, science, banking, accountancy, and corporate governance... pretty much anything you can think of.

What about teaching?
Do you think that profession is inherently sexist against men because the vast majority of teachers are women?

86% of women are teachers, but then again, this represents the college feed. More women are attracted into teaching, there is no active discrimination on behalf of the CAO. But here's the bit that suggests a problem.

Although women represent 86% of the teaching profession, they are only 65% of principals. There is a massive anomaly there in favour of men.

Whether you realise it or not young men are now far more likely to be (positively) discriminated against than young women. Especially when talking about STEM industries where companies are falling over themselves to show how right on they are. Special women only training, fast track management programmes and mentoring are becoming the norm in these industries. All the while creating a sense of division that just wasn't there before HR clowns got their hands on the controls in an attempt to 'redress the balance'.

You mean a sense of division that men didn't perceive, perhaps.

There are strange anomalies in women's participation in STEM subjects, especially in Ireland.

In Sweden, 49% of STEM doctoral thesis candidates are women, in Ireland it's 19%. Something is deeply wrong there. I think questions need to be asked of STEM faculties, politicians and scientific corporations as regards why they think so few women are pursuing STEM in Ireland, relative to other countries.

JRant · 02-08-2016 08:45PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

Less than a third of senior academic posts in Ireland’s universities and ITs held by women.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/women-under-represented-in-senior-university-posts-hea-finds-1.2024458
Ok, it's from December 2014, but I seriously doubt that the figures have changed dramatically in 18 months.

So what?
Not everything should be nor can be a 50/50 split in gender.

You're not seriously arguing that 3rd level institutions are deliberately discriminating against women, are you? Because that would be against the law.

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 08:48PM

JRant wrote: »

It just shows a growing resistance to nonsense. If someone, male or female, wants to commit such no sense to paper then they are going to be called out on it more and more.

By the way, it's not just men pointing out the hypocrisy of her arguments, many women are also calling it for what it is.

The strongest person I ever met was my grandmother, she had an iron will and determination and wouldn't stand for the nonsense these so called feminists come out with.

Don't have a punchline answer, so not a rhetorical question as such.....
....perhaps 'Ted' from this thread can help, as he has a knowledge of feminists and light bulbs but...

What's the difference between a 'feminist' and a 'so called feminist', or are they all the same in your opinion?

02-08-2016 08:49PM

Jaysis, ye lads are nuts on this (as in zealously fervent, not crazy). It reminds me of the A&A crowd picking apart Christianity.

I suppose AH is a "fem free zone" then? cose there's a lot of angry ranting going on

(FWIW, I'd consider myself feminist in the "everyone able to do what they want to do" bent, but I'm not a "9 out of 10 on the feminist score is not 10, so it's the same as 1 so it's SH*T YOU B*****D!!!" type. Chill is the key.)

livedadream · 02-08-2016 08:51PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh he's a shíte stirrer alright and an unreal notice box, but I'd bet the farm a large chunk of your opinion on his scribblings comes secondhand.

how much of your farm do i get?

because i couldnt possibly have read his original posts, or read articles he has written,listened to him on the triggering, or even watched some of his talks, because im a silly women, back to the kitchen i go..

Wibbs wrote: »

No. I am afraid that is your perception and the panic signalling that has been aimed at women for the last 20 years in particular.

please dont mansplain to me, if you read my post you would have seen that i have been attacked, been followed twice of a tube by a man who was arrested while waiting outside a tube station for me, turns out i was right to ask for help as he was a convicted rapist.

Wibbs wrote: »

If you had read my post earlier, including actual hard statistics, while women suffer far more sexual assault(outside large institutions like schools) a man, any man is in far more danger of being physically attacked than you as a woman.

i totally agree with you, i didnt say ANYWHERE anything to the contrary of this, what i describe was me as a women and the action take, and if it matter which im guessing to you it doesnt, i would much rather have the bejessus beaten outta me on grafton street again than be raped.

Wibbs wrote: »

You may feel more threat, but the reality doesn't back up that fear.

its my reality though you get that, i can only reiterate the whole being assulted, being followed off a tube.. thats real stuff thats happened to me,

that doesnt go to mention the numerous times men have felt the need to moterboat me in a club for a laugh, grab my ass, try to maul onto me because they thought i was up for it.

the fact of the matter is a large proporation of the female population have experienced this on a day to day basis, yes i do not doubt there is a slight hysteria in what o neill writes however she does have a following for a reason, because what she discusses is common for a lot of women.

ancapailldorcha · 02-08-2016 08:53PM

Well, I support repealing the 8th amendment, not telling women what to do in general and initiatives to convince girls that STEM subjects, Politics, etc are viable career paths as well as reform of academia to making it more compatible with motherhood. The problem I have is with this shrill, sexist element of modern feminism which is becoming too mainstream for my liking. Look above and you'll see people pointing out that men are hardwired to rape. Have you ever been convinced of a different point of view because someone insulted you? I haven't.

JRant · 02-08-2016 08:53PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No, it's one example that popped into my mind, because I happen to have read an article on that topic recently. I didn't claim it applies across the board, although I'll bet you;ll find the similar statistics in law, medicine, science, banking, accountancy, and corporate governance... pretty much anything you can think of.

86% of women are teachers, but then again, this represents the college feed. More women are attracted into teaching, there is no active discrimination on behalf of the CAO. But here's the bit that suggests a problem.

Although women represent 86% of the teaching profession, they are only 65% of principals. There is a massive anomaly there in favour of men.

You mean a sense of division that men didn't perceive, perhaps.

Perhaps that's because there are strange anomalies in women's participation in STEM subjects, especially in Ireland.

In Sweden, 49% of STEM doctoral thesis candidates are women, in Ireland it's 19%. Something is deeply wrong there.

And there we have it.

There are no obstacles for men entering teaching via CAO. The exact same logic applies to all those other sectors you list.

There is not one single thing stopping any person, man or woman, from applying to STEM courses or any other course they want (providing they get the points).

No, the sense of division that hasn't been there in my working life but when you have the head of HR in a large organisation stand up in front of a few hundred employees and state categorically that she will be favouring female employees without a hint of irony as to how unbelievably sexist that appears you know the loonies have taken over the asylum.

Ulysses Gaze · 02-08-2016 08:53PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The working week is (literally) a man-made social institution, it didn't come down from Mount Sinai with Moses.

We can change it by following the examples set by Sweden: extending equal parental rights to women and to men, free pre-school, access to means-tested childcare provided by the State, as well as other means, such as stricter regulation of the working week, as in France, i.e. decreasing the number of hours in the working week, and decreasing the maximum overtime hours.

Again, our Lord himself did not come up with the magical '40 hours' figure, and advances in technology & automation would justify its amendment.

Which means more taxes to be paid. The Swedes pay some of the highest income taxes in the world. I hear this all the time. "We need to follow the Swedish model". That's fine....but Irish people will not want to pay those higher taxes.

In terms of reducing the working week? Will you accept less pay? Because that is what will happen.

ancapailldorcha · 02-08-2016 08:54PM

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Which means more taxes to be paid. The Swedes pay some of the highest income taxes in the world. I hear this all the time. "We need to follow the Swedish model". That's fine....but Irish people will not pay those higher taxes.

In terms of reducing the working week? Will you accept less pay? Because that is what will happen.

Irish people already pay huge income taxes as well as a very high rate of capital gains tax to the point where it is counterproductive to be successful in Ireland if you can be just as successful elsewhere. The problem is the tendency of various Irish governments to pander to various special interest groups.

JRant · 02-08-2016 09:03PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

Don't have a punchline answer, so not a rhetorical question as such.....
....perhaps 'Ted' from this thread can help, as he has a knowledge of feminists and light bulbs but...

What's the difference between a 'feminist' and a 'so called feminist', or are they all the same in your opinion?

Well IMO no right minded person identifying as a feminist would believe that all the men in their lives were just putting on a facade and really just women haters like she put in one of her articles.

02-08-2016 09:04PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Look above and you'll see people pointing out that men are hardwired to rape.

Seems like you need to look better, the poster said it may be the case. Sexual aggression may actually have an evolutionary basis.

There's a broad, longstanding academic discussion about this, it seems.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/98ApsC8.pdf

I think it was a very interesting suggestion, can't say I ever thought about it in this way.

JRant wrote: »

And there we have it.

There are no obstacles for men entering teaching via CAO. The exact same logic applies to all those other sectors you list.

Except we know that's not the case. Childcare costs, for example, may be a disincentive for women who want to devote time to a doctoral degree which may take four or five years, or having children may not be compatible with life in STEM, whereas teaching tends to be very compatible with having children and being a mother.

There is not one single thing stopping any person, man or woman, from applying to STEM courses

Except the knowledge that it isn't always consistent with motherhood, but I only partially disagree, and that's why I specifically mentioned doctoral students.

There's no reason why 50% of Swedish doctoral students in STEM should be females, yet only 20% are female here.

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

Which means more taxes to be paid. The Swedes pay some of the highest income taxes in the world. I hear this all the time. "We need to follow the Swedish model". That's fine....but Irish people will not want to pay those higher taxes.

I don't care.

You didn't ask me how it's going to be funded, you asked what I suggest happens. That's what should happen, regardless of the fact that some people are too blind to see the benefits.

In terms of reducing the working week? Will you accept less pay? Because that is what will happen.

The idea is to preserve incomes and reduce hours, taking account of automation & technology.

Again, it's not *going* to happen, even if it should.

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 09:05PM

JRant wrote: »

So what?
Not everything should be nor can be a 50/50 split in gender.

You're not seriously arguing that 3rd level institutions are deliberately discriminating against women, are you? Because that would be against the law.

Discriminatory hiring practices - institutional and cultural - against women are difficult to prove in a court of law, and mightily expensive too I would imagine.
But if you believe that they don't exist, then I'm not sure where we can go from here.

mcmoustache · 02-08-2016 09:10PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

...

You're one of the best at this that I've ever seen.

Kudos.

The Rape of Lucretia · 02-08-2016 09:13PM

JRant wrote: »

Well IMO no right minded person identifying as a feminist would believe that all the men in their lives were just putting on a facade and really just women haters like she put in one of her articles.

Well not deliberately just putting on a facade necessarily, but nevertheless. Some things are just so natural it is possible many men are completely unaware of it, but channelling a hostile and readiness to exploit an opportunity over a women as the chance may arise.
The masculine power expediency drive is present to some extent, great or small, at the interface of every man-woman interaction. Culture, law, learned restraint, does not temper it in every case unfortunately.

TSMGUY · 02-08-2016 09:16PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well not deliberately just putting on a facade necessarily, but nevertheless. Some things are just so natural it is possible many men are completely unaware of it, but channelling a hostile and readiness to exploit an opportunity over a women as the chance may arise.
The masculine power expediency drive is present to some extent, great or small, at the interface of every man-woman interaction. Culture, law, learned restraint, does not temper it in every case unfortunately.

JRant · 02-08-2016 09:16PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Seems like you need to look better, the poster said it may be the case. Sexual aggression may actually have an evolutionary basis.

There's a broad, longstanding academic discussion about this, it seems.
http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/malamuth/pdf/98ApsC8.pdf

I think it was a very interesting suggestion, can't say I ever thought about it in this way.

Except we know that's not the case. Childcare costs, for example, may be a disincentive for women who want to devote time to a doctoral degree which may take four or five years, or having children may not be compatible with life in STEM, whereas teaching tends to be very compatible with having children and being a mother.

Except the knowledge that it isn't always consistent with motherhood, but I only partially disagree, and that's why I specifically mentioned doctoral students.

There's no reason why 50% of Swedish doctoral students in STEM should be females, yet only 20% are female here.

I don't care.

You didn't ask me how it's going to be funded, you asked what I suggest happens. That's what should happen, regardless of the fact that some people are too blind to see the benefits.

The idea is to preserve incomes and reduce hours, taking account of automation & technology.

Again, it's not *going* to happen, even if it should.

Childcare is as much an issue for men as it is women. I have a young family, work in STEM, my partner works full time and yet we seem to be able to make it compatible with family life. They're just convenient excuses trotted out to justify discrimination when it suits.

JRant · 02-08-2016 09:21PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well not deliberately just putting on a facade necessarily, but nevertheless. Some things are just so natural it is possible many men are completely unaware of it, but channelling a hostile and readiness to exploit an opportunity over a women as the chance may arise.
The masculine power expediency drive is present to some extent, great or small, at the interface of every man-woman interaction. Culture, law, learned restraint, does not temper it in every case unfortunately.

Or it could be just a pile of tripe.

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 09:21PM

JRant wrote: »

Well IMO no right minded person identifying as a feminist would believe that all the men in their lives were just putting on a facade and really just women haters like she put in one of her articles.

I agree with the above, I thought, incorrectly, that you were out to 'rubbish' feminism itself or the very notion of feminism, which of course you're perfectly entitled to do.

There is a bit of a problem with this thread though, I think some (not all) posters are taking the opportunity presented by Louise O'Neill (who I think is PANTS btw) to take their barely disguised prejudices out for an evening stroll......
....their defence when questioned: I'm not arguing against women per se, it's Louise O'Neill I'm against, well that might be true for some - your good self included - but some posts on this thread are very hectoring indeed.
Oh, and please don't ask me to name the guilty parties, just have a read of the thread from the top and decide for yourself.

mzungu · 02-08-2016 09:22PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Well not deliberately just putting on a facade necessarily, but nevertheless. Some things are just so natural it is possible many men are completely unaware of it, but channelling a hostile and readiness to exploit an opportunity over a women as the chance may arise.
The masculine power expediency drive is present to some extent, great or small, at the interface of every man-woman interaction. Culture, law, learned restraint, does not temper it in every case unfortunately.

So you believe men, if given the chance, will rape?

Wibbs · 02-08-2016 10:23PM

livedadream wrote: »

please dont mansplain to me,

:pac: "mansplain". Fantastic.

and if it matter which im guessing to you it doesnt, i would much rather have the bejessus beaten outta me on grafton street again than be raped.

OK, prefiguring what I may find of moral weight, or not. Clearly I'm a rape apologist or something. *slow handclap*

Zxclnic wrote:

some posts on this thread are very hectoring indeed.

or maybe tired of the provably Grade A utter bullshite that is far too much of current "feminist" thinking. Apparently disagreeing with the Gospel of the Sisters of the Blessed Victimhood is heresy and automatically "prejudiced", "misogynist". Always a good plan to throw in a "phobia" or an "ist" when the debate gets a bit hairy. I think the majority of the Red Pill manosphere stuff provably Grade A utter bullshite too. Does this make me a misandrist? Oh wait.. Yes I am happy to state I think modern feminism is a crock. A cracked little philosophy of victimhood and failed Lefties looking for a cause after the Berlin Wall came down. Too many of todays "feminists" are ever more spoiled self involved little girls playing dress up in their great grandmothers Suffragette clothes. I'd be happy to say I was a Suffragette, but a Feminist? Nope.

mzungu wrote: »

So you believe men, if given the chance, will rape?

Nah M. How can I put this… for whom the bell trolls, it trolls for thee. As it were.

Wibbs · 02-08-2016 10:26PM

Yer wan's agent must be rubbing themselves all over in onanistic glee at a thread like this. No such thing as bad publicity, especially if you're out to pimp the victim narrative.

Poor Uncle Tom · 02-08-2016 10:39PM

Suffragette = striving for equal rights,

Feminist = how dare you disagree with me,

Modern Feminist = Fed up of playing house, now lets play world, girls only,

Widdershins · 02-08-2016 10:40PM

The Archbishop of Banterbury wrote: »

Had a look at her facebook page one day and she was talking about how she's only attracted to alpha males. Funny how's she's not attracted the feminist 'beta' male sycophants who'll defend every word she says!

I'm not at all surprised .Who wants a relationship with someone who hangs on your every word etc., they are just useful idiots to such feminists .

TSMGUY · 02-08-2016 10:40PM

The Archbishop of Banterbury wrote: »

Had a look at her facebook page one day and she was talking about how she's only attracted to alpha males. Funny how's she's not attracted the feminist 'beta' male sycophants who'll defend every word she says!

this just keeps getting better!

Sweetemotion · 02-08-2016 10:45PM

Wibbs wrote: »

*slow handclap*.

No hand clapping please, you are triggering me.

Jazz hands and wiggling like a worm only :pac:

Zxclnic · 02-08-2016 10:58PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zxclnic:
Some posts on this thread are very hectoring indeed.
- - - - - - - - - -
Wibbs: or maybe tired of the provably Grade A utter bull****e that is far too much of current "feminist" thinking. Apparently disagreeing with the Gospel of the Sisters of the Blessed Victimhood is heresy and automatically "prejudiced", "misogynist". Always a good plan to throw in a "phobia" or an "ist" when the debate gets a bit hairy. I think the majority of the Red Pill manosphere stuff provably Grade A utter bull****e too. Does this make me a misandrist? Oh wait.. Yes I am happy to state I think modern feminism is a crock. A cracked little philosophy of victimhood and failed Lefties looking for a cause after the Berlin Wall came down. Too many of todays "feminists" are ever more spoiled self involved little girls playing dress up in their great grandmothers Suffragette clothes. I'd be happy to say I was a Suffragette, but a Feminist? Nope.

Yep, that'll be hectoring alright.

Louise O Neill

Comments