Louise O Neill

Wibbs · 03-08-2016 01:57PM

Lisha wrote: »

I thought believed in feminism, but now it seems that being a feminist means you must be a misandrist.

The problem is L increasingly that's precisely what it means. Men(and boys) are increasingly demonised and the subject of this very thread is a good example of it. This is an individual so screwed up by Feminism 3.0 that she exhumes the memory of her apparently kindly grandfather to question if he hated her just because of her gender. Ditto for ex boyfriends. That's either bloody shabby or bloody insane, or both. And don't forget this is in a national media outlet that considers itself a paper of note. This is not some scary haired Tumblr nutter.

I do believe that there is an increasing disconnect between ordinary men and women who self identify as feminist(like yourself) and what feminism is increasingly reflecting as a philosophy and political stance. There is nothing in your post I would disagree with L and feel precisely the same. However official feminism - and no not just the crazies either - is subtly different. It's not dissimilar from a religious thing in that the majority of most faithful are a la carte and broadly sensible.

Like I said I would have said I was that a la carte feminist years ago, but the bullshít from actual feminism kept piling up, so while I would feel and think exactly the same as you L, no way would I attach that label to me. It's tainted.

kunst nugget · 03-08-2016 02:01PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

I really haven't the time or the stomach - as I do think that some people on this thread wrongly equate feminism with misandry.

orubiru wrote: »

What if they aren't wrong?

Would you even consider it?

Of course, we all know the dictionary definition of Feminism. By that definition I would be a Feminist.

Would you consider the possibility that some people would use the Feminist label as a cover to hide, or a shield to protect, their bigoted views or their misandry?

After all, it wouldn't been the first time a good or noble cause has been hijacked, subverted and used to bully or victimise.

Is this not the same kind of generalisation of a group based on actions of a bad few that you are railing against in this thread?

Lux23 · 03-08-2016 02:03PM

El Caffo wrote: »

The same way some women trap men with pregnancies? The same way some women falsely accuse of rape? The same way some women marry for money?

All subjects which wouldn't be open for discussion on this forum as it doesn't fit the narrative.

I think all of those things are something men need to be wary of in much the same way women have to be mindful of male violence.

In relation to the second point, however, the justice system isn't a man and so it has to investigate all allegations with an open mind. So if the discussion is around the investigating authority treating the allegation like it has been made up, then this is wrong. The defendant is already protected in that their guilt must be proven.

pumpkin4life · 03-08-2016 02:04PM

Wibbs wrote: »

The problem is L increasingly that's precisely what it means. Men(and boys) are increasingly demonised and the subject of this very thread is a good example of it. This is an individual so screwed up by Feminism 3.0 that she exhumes the memory of her apparently kindly grandfather to question if he hated her just because of her gender. Ditto for ex boyfriends. That's either bloody shabby or bloody insane, or both. And don't forget this is in a national media outlet that considers itself a paper of note. This is not some scary haired Tumblr nutter.

I do believe that there is an increasing disconnect between ordinary men and women who self identify as feminist(like yourself) and what feminism is increasingly reflecting as a philosophy and political stance. There is nothing in your post I would disagree with L and feel precisely the same. However official feminism - and no not just the crazies either - is subtly different. It's not dissimilar from a religious thing in that the majority of most faithful are a la carte and broadly sensible.

Like I said I would have said I was that a la carte feminist years ago, but the bullshít from actual feminism kept piling up, so while I would feel and think exactly the same as you L, no way would I attach that label to me. It's tainted.

What I find interesting is that in terms of developments:

1) It's becoming more sex-negative, among the nutter ones anyhow.

2) It seems to be converging on this weird Cult of Sensibility; everything is an issue now, lets be all emotional about it. Jane Austen would have had a ****en field day with third wave feminism and would have seen the exact same nonsense coming from almost the exact same source.

Zxclnic · 03-08-2016 02:05PM

orubiru wrote: »

What if they aren't wrong?

Would you even consider it?

Of course, we all know the dictionary definition of Feminism. By that definition I would be a Feminist.

Would you consider the possibility that some people would use the Feminist label as a cover to hide, or a shield to protect, their bigoted views or their misandry?

After all, it wouldn't been the first time a good or noble cause has been hijacked, subverted and used to bully or victimise.

I would absolutely agree that some use the word 'Feminist' to disguise their bigotry, and I think they're very wrong to so do.
I also think that some might be using this Louise O'Neill bashing
thread to have a gratuitous pop at 'feminism' while they're
here....a free hit, if you like, under the cover of criticising
Ms. O'Neill's inane ramblings.

livedadream · 03-08-2016 02:15PM

padd b1975 wrote: »

Don't forget the disgusting point scoring by women when it comes to paternal access, consistently enabled by the family courts.

its one of those things, it goes both ways,

while i dont agree with the laws in ireland in regards to access etc.

for every guy that is out there fighting for access there is a girl fighting for child support

for every girl that gets raped there is twice the number of guys that get assulted

for every guy that gets *''trapped'' into pregnancy there are girls who are also trapped into having a child they do not want

*i am a firm believer in dont do the unsafe crime if you cant do the time, however do accept that some girls lie and it can happen and also that you can be on the pill and the condom can break and the morning after pill might not work and you can still end up with a baby.

i do accept that for a while women didnt have it as nice as the lads had it.
no vote, giving up work after getting married, etc etc. however that doesnt men mena should be made feel like **** about it.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 03-08-2016 02:17PM

Alright common ground - let's all agree that Louise O'Neill's view are a tad extreme to say the least, forget about labeling each other and work together as fellow humans...

Man, I hate all this modern, drive wedges between groups bullsh*t.

kunst nugget · 03-08-2016 02:17PM

I am Spartacus!

Rakish Paddy · 03-08-2016 02:21PM

I already had some idea of what to expect from the author's columns from reading this discussion so far, but I still went ahead and a read a few of them out of morbid curiosity.

Let's just say they contain so much horse sh!te that I'm considering printing out a few of them and using them to fertilise my flower beds.

I had to Google the author to get background information and was surprised that she's from West Cork and 30 years old - the columns read more like the work of an emotional and over-the-top American teenager.

I'm no Shakespeare myself so I don't necessarily want to put someone down for being a poor writer, but how is the newspaper's editor allowing such drivel to be printed?

Zxclnic · 03-08-2016 02:26PM

I am Spartacus!

Wibbs · 03-08-2016 02:47PM

I am the eggman, coo coo cachoo.

Rakish Paddy · 03-08-2016 02:49PM

Wibbs wrote: »

I am the eggman, coo coo cachoo.

So I've put on a little bit of weight recently. It doesn't mean I am the f*cking walrus. Stop body-shaming me!

mzungu · 03-08-2016 02:52PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

I am Spartacus!

Wibbs wrote: »

I am the eggman, coo coo cachoo.

Rakish Paddy wrote: »

It doesn't mean I am the f*cking walrus.

Stop with all this cultural appropriation....it's triggering me!!!!!!

orubiru · 03-08-2016 02:58PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

I would absolutely agree that some use the word 'Feminist' to disguise their bigotry, and I think they're very wrong to so do.
I also think that some might be using this Louise O'Neill bashing
thread to have a gratuitous pop at 'feminism' while they're
here....a free hit, if you like, under the cover of criticising
Ms. O'Neill's inane ramblings.

It's certainly true that many, including myself, are not slow to have a pop at Feminism but there is so much to have a pop at, really.

One of the things that eventually has to happen is that the movement, or the community, needs to start policing itself.

Maybe that's wrong, actually, to have a pop at Feminism, but when prominent people declare "I am a Feminist" and then immediately proceed to spew the most irrational and divisive garbage it can be hard to separate the two.

It's especially hard when other prominent people who also identify as Feminists don't really speak out or criticise, right?

Imagine being in a pub and some lad stands up and hollers "I'm a fan of Coldplay! Now, let's kill all the LGBTQs!". You'd be asking yourself "what the hell, how are those two things related"?

Imagine that this becomes a trend. People telling you "I'm a fan of Coldplay" just before going on some kind of weird anti-LGBTQ rant. You see it online. You see it on TV. "I'm a fan of Coldplay and I think LGBTQ people are the worst". Those two things are not related, nor should they be, but inevitably people will wonder if it's not a coincidence.

Eventually fans of Coldplay and, I'm sure, Coldplay themselves would speak out about this.

So here's the thing. When people like Louise O'Neill speak out about Feminism it's people like those on the thread here who are saying not only does this garbage have nothing to do with Feminism but this garbage is the reason why they won't identify as Feminists themselves.

Where are the prominent Feminists though? Are they giving her a big thumbs up and a pat on the back?

You actually really need good Feminists speaking up and criticising the louder and more visible Feminist bullies before you can change the public perception of what Feminism really should be about.

Who wouldn't be in favour of all the good things that can come with Feminism? Are all the bad things an acceptable cost?

When do people say to Louise O'Neill that actually she is doing more harm than good? When do the more rational, more reasonable Feminists step in?

Ulysses Gaze · 03-08-2016 02:58PM

mzungu wrote: »

Stop with all this cultural appropriation....it's triggering me!!!!!!

QUICK!

http://columbiaspectator.com/sites/default/files/safe%20space%20FINALLY_0.jpg

mzungu · 03-08-2016 03:16PM

orubiru wrote: »

It's certainly true that many, including myself, are not slow to have a pop at Feminism but there is so much to have a pop at, really.

One of the things that eventually has to happen is that the movement, or the community, needs to start policing itself.

Maybe that's wrong, actually, to have a pop at Feminism, but when prominent people declare "I am a Feminist" and then immediately proceed to spew the most irrational and divisive garbage it can be hard to separate the two.

It's especially hard when other prominent people who also identify as Feminists don't really speak out or criticise, right?

Imagine being in a pub and some lad stands up and hollers "I'm a fan of Coldplay! Now, let's kill all the LGBTQs!". You'd be asking yourself "what the hell, how are those two things related"?

Imagine that this becomes a trend. People telling you "I'm a fan of Coldplay" just before going on some kind of weird anti-LGBTQ rant. You see it online. You see it on TV. "I'm a fan of Coldplay and I think LGBTQ people are the worst". Those two things are not related, nor should they be, but inevitably people will wonder if it's not a coincidence.

Eventually fans of Coldplay and, I'm sure, Coldplay themselves would speak out about this.

So here's the thing. When people like Louise O'Neill speak out about Feminism it's people like those on the thread here who are saying not only does this garbage have nothing to do with Feminism but this garbage is the reason why they won't identify as Feminists themselves.

Where are the prominent Feminists though? Are they giving her a big thumbs up and a pat on the back?

You actually really need good Feminists speaking up and criticising the louder and more visible Feminist bullies before you can change the public perception of what Feminism really should be about.

Who wouldn't be in favour of all the good things that can come with Feminism? Are all the bad things an acceptable cost?

When do people say to Louise O'Neill that actually she is doing more harm than good? When do the more rational, more reasonable Feminists step in?

Check out Christina Hoff Sommers. Her stuff is pretty good and her opinions are backed up by facts and never descends into the silly buzzword overkill that a lot of todays gender discourse is littered with. She is also a very outspoken critic of the modern movement, and its descent into the Oppression Olympics.

El Caffo · 03-08-2016 03:29PM

Zxclnic wrote: »

The same way some women trap men with pregnancies?
That's a very nebulous area, made even more so by your accusatory choice of words.
What do you mean by 'trap' exactly?

The same way some women falsely accuse of rape?

To falsely accuse someone of rape is horrendous and a despicable thing to do, on that we can agree.
But when you say ''the same way'' what do you mean, the same as what?

The same way some women marry for money?
Forgive me, but that's just funny!:)

I'm just pointing out the usual hypocrisy when it comes to generalising a gender.

silverharp · 03-08-2016 03:30PM

mzungu wrote: »

Check out Christina Hoff Sommers. Her stuff is pretty good and her opinions are backed up by facts and never descends into the silly buzzword overkill that a lot of todays gender discourse is littered with. She is also a very outspoken critic of the modern movement, and its descent into the Oppression Olympics.

Camille Paglia is a smart cookie too

The Rape of Lucretia · 03-08-2016 03:33PM

orubiru wrote: »

Hm.

What if we...

Wow. Just wow.

Hm.

I wonder if... in another universe...

Yikes.

I tell you what, I'll check my privilege if you check your prejudice.

This is very poor logic and does not rebut the original point.

Rape is directly linked with being male - being female makes you innately less likely to commit it.
Suicide bombing is directly linked and a characteristic of being muslim - it is not carried out by other religions.
Committing crime is NOT a characteristic or result of skin colour.

There is a big difference between a causal and circumstantial relationship.

Suckler · 03-08-2016 03:58PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Suicide bombing is directly linked and a characteristic of being muslim

You mention logic then come up with this.

mcmoustache · 03-08-2016 03:59PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is very poor logic and does not rebut the original point.

Rape is directly linked with being male - being female makes you innately less likely to commit it.
Suicide bombing is directly linked and a characteristic of being muslim - it is not carried out by other religions.
Committing crime is NOT a characteristic or result of skin colour.

There is a big difference between a causal and circumstantial relationship.

Are you sure about the bolded part?

I rememeber a documentary from over 10 years ago in which this theory was put to the test.

If I remember correctly, a white, middle-class, priviledged business type with no prior criminal record was studied.

Later on, he was painted brown and the changes in his behaviour were monitored. It seemed that he started feeling a strong compulsion to commit various crimes, mainly of a larcenous nature but he may have been feeling a bit rapey too.

I'll see if I can find the documentary as I don't want to be wrong on the internet about this...

noaddedsugar · 03-08-2016 04:00PM

orubiru wrote: »

It's certainly true that many, including myself, are not slow to have a pop at Feminism but there is so much to have a pop at, really.

One of the things that eventually has to happen is that the movement, or the community, needs to start policing itself.

Maybe that's wrong, actually, to have a pop at Feminism, but when prominent people declare "I am a Feminist" and then immediately proceed to spew the most irrational and divisive garbage it can be hard to separate the two.

It's especially hard when other prominent people who also identify as Feminists don't really speak out or criticise, right?

Imagine being in a pub and some lad stands up and hollers "I'm a fan of Coldplay! Now, let's kill all the LGBTQs!". You'd be asking yourself "what the hell, how are those two things related"?

Imagine that this becomes a trend. People telling you "I'm a fan of Coldplay" just before going on some kind of weird anti-LGBTQ rant. You see it online. You see it on TV. "I'm a fan of Coldplay and I think LGBTQ people are the worst". Those two things are not related, nor should they be, but inevitably people will wonder if it's not a coincidence.

Eventually fans of Coldplay and, I'm sure, Coldplay themselves would speak out about this.

So here's the thing. When people like Louise O'Neill speak out about Feminism it's people like those on the thread here who are saying not only does this garbage have nothing to do with Feminism but this garbage is the reason why they won't identify as Feminists themselves.

Where are the prominent Feminists though? Are they giving her a big thumbs up and a pat on the back?

You actually really need good Feminists speaking up and criticising the louder and more visible Feminist bullies before you can change the public perception of what Feminism really should be about.

Who wouldn't be in favour of all the good things that can come with Feminism? Are all the bad things an acceptable cost?

When do people say to Louise O'Neill that actually she is doing more harm than good? When do the more rational, more reasonable Feminists step in?

A man telling women how to do feminism, how original :rolleyes:

mcmoustache · 03-08-2016 04:03PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

I'll see if I can find the documentary as I don't want to be wrong on the internet about this...

Found it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stMdInZdxlM

pumpkin4life · 03-08-2016 04:04PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

Are you sure about the bolded part?

I rememeber a documentary from over 10 years ago in which this theory was put to the test.

If I remember correctly, a white, middle-class, priviledged business type with no prior criminal record was studied.

Later on, he was painted brown and the changes in his behaviour were monitored. It seemed that he started feeling a strong compulsion to commit various crimes, mainly of a larcenous nature but he may have been feeling a bit rapey too.

I'll see if I can find the documentary as I don't want to be wrong on the internet about this...

Was he on cake by any chance?

The rare and very good dangerous drug from Czechoslovakia.

03-08-2016 04:19PM

mzungu wrote: »

Check out Christina Hoff Sommers. Her stuff is pretty good and her opinions are backed up by facts and never descends into the silly buzzword overkill that a lot of todays gender discourse is littered with. She is also a very outspoken critic of the modern movement, and its descent into the Oppression Olympics.

Some of her works are in fact hostile to feminism. How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men reads like something that could have been written by one of the more rubicund, raving contributors to this thread.

Hoff Somers is feminist in principle, perhaps, but her philosophy is characterised by gender liberalism: leave (mostly) alone, don't intervene, everything will sort itself out. This line of thinking, despite its initial attractiveness to any liberal-minded person, fails to appreciate the inherent flaws in the archiecture of this world, which might as well be called Mantopia, at times. Some especially doltish men cling like ivy to the decaying masonry of her thought, the ruins of 'the second wave'. She is the Caspar Milquetoast of feminist theory. I think quite a lot of women regard her as anti-feminist, sometimes with good reason.

She is undoubtedly more intelligent than Louise O'Neill, and her outlook is more coherent. But I'd hardly regard either Louise O'Neill or CH Somers as representing modern feminism.

mcmoustache · 03-08-2016 04:27PM

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Was he on cake by any chance?

The rare and very good dangerous drug from Czechoslovakia.

Don't be silly. That's a made-up drug.

ancapailldorcha · 03-08-2016 04:32PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

She is undoubtedly more intelligent than Louise O'Neill, and her outlook is more coherent. But I'd hardly regard either Louise O'Neill or CH Somers as representing modern feminism.

Fair criticism. However, if you compare the manner and style of the 2 women, you'll see Sommers make her point in a calm, rational manner while often citing sources to support her arguments. The likes of O'Neill seem to be shouting empty nonsense by comparison with a likely ambition of flogging their next book. It's not hard to see why some people would prefer the former.

03-08-2016 04:32PM

mcmoustache wrote: »

Don't be silly. That's a made-up drug.

You should check out another Brass Eye episode, Paedogeddon. Another fine, incisive piece of documentary analysis about super-powered child abusers, and totally not a satire at all....

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Fair criticism. However, if you compare the manner and style of the 2 women, you'll see Sommers make her point in a calm, rational manner while often citing sources to support her arguments. The likes of O'Neill seem to be shouting empty nonsense by comparison with a likely ambition of flogging their next book. It's not hard to see why some people would prefer the former.

I know. I've read Somers. She's bearable and makes coherent points, even though I disagree with her fundamental approach (things are getting worse for men, ergo feminism is redundant, or her belief that there is nothing inherently wrong with the institutional design of work).

I'm not defending Louise O'Neill. I've been mocking her as much as the next man, or woman. But I'd put some of the posters in this thread into the same category as her, because of the rumbustious single vision of 'feminism' they are willing to accept, and an inability to engage with feminist theory, even the more radical aspects of it. I think we can have a debate with some intellectual honesty, without resorting to mordant, anti-intellectual denunciations of one another's opinions or even curiosities.

The suggestion that sexual aggression is something that has been perpetuated through natural selection, for example. It is roundly dismissed without a thought by some, including yourself, who describe it as saying that 'men are hard-wired to rape'. That's a sensationalist type of reductionism of Louise O'Neill proportions.

silverharp · 03-08-2016 04:33PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

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.

why do you assume men and women want to study the same subjects in the same numbers? even in places like Norway or Sweden men flock to engineering and women don't even though no doubt the government throw money at encouraging them to do so.
you sound like a blank slate type that would get frustrated at every statistic that isn't 50/50 and then back fill with oppression type arguments

Decent Skin · 03-08-2016 04:36PM

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

This is very poor logic and does not rebut the original point.

Rape is directly linked with being male - being female makes you innately less likely to commit it.
Suicide bombing is directly linked and a characteristic of being muslim - it is not carried out by other religions.
Committing crime is NOT a characteristic or result of skin colour.

There is a big difference between a causal and circumstantial relationship.

Firstly, the bolded sentence contradicts itself.

Secondly, committing crime (rape or otherwise) is NOT a characteristic or result of BEING MALE!

Thirdly, that post is so sexist and offensive I've to stop typing now so as not to fall foul of the charter - livid that ANYONE could imply (and get away with it) that I'm somehow liable to commit rape!

Louise O Neill

Comments