nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Ralf and Florian

She presented a documentary on rape culture during the week on RTE which focused on the issue of sexual assault against females. It's interesting to note her response to a (male) follower would tweeted that it would be hilarious to see a remake of Deliverance featuring "pissed up dickheads on a drunken stag". For anyone who's not seen the movie Deliverance its about three city dwellers who go for a weekend fishing to what could be described as a backwoods community. Central to the storyline is when they are held captive and one of them raped by a bunch of rednecks.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/794195404145442816

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Zulu

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm the daughter of a mansplainer. I was condescended to throughout my childhood ....

Hummm. Children get condescended to all the time, it's not really gender specific, but thats really an aside.
I think the more salient point is whether or not your father warrants or deserves a gender specific insult (unless your intention is to perpetuate sexism).

Widdershins

Zulu wrote: »

Hummm. Children get condescended to all the time, it's not really gender specific, but thats really an aside.
I think the more salient point is whether or not your father warrants or deserves a gender specific insult (unless your intention is to perpetuate sexism).

Do they? I don't think so..there is a difference. And if that was the case thewn why did his attitude not change as I got older? Why is his attitude the same toward his wife and other women?

I'm hardly perpetuating sexism-it is he who views himself as being in a position to do the explaining because of his own gender. It seems you're unwilling to acknowledge that sexism against girls and women exists. I've never disagreed that it exists the other way around, too.Nor do I believe he's representative of a majority of men, as I already pointed out. I'm just talking about one of my own experiences.

Walter H Price

stateofflux wrote: »

As a man i find it quite disturbing that this kind of media (don't get me started on that 'Man Up' Campaign) is becoming the norm, with the pretext being female empowerment in an oppressive male dominated society

the subversive implication is that all Irish men are ticking time bombs that consciously repress the intent to sexually assault a woman.

this is wrong on so many levels and is grossly sexist.

100% agree i have never seen a woman be assaulted sexually or physically in a club , bar or on the street that a man (usually an Irish Man has stepped in) i did it three times myself in college , twice it was Muslim men (who do have a rape culture) forcing themselves on girls on college nights out ,2 or 3 irish lads and polish lads stepped in myself included and stopped both of those, once it was an Irish guy who assaulted my girlfriend after a night out i dealt with him personally. He didn't have to many friends if any after that came out and dropped out of college ultimately.

In my experience 99% of Irish lads i know are appalled by rape and have a very negative reaction towords anyone who thinks its ok to force themselves on women. The only grey are for me and any of the lads I've spoken to about this is a situation were both people are drunk.

I honestly believe it happened in reverse to me on a night out i got twisted KO'd and woke up in bed with a girl id said no to a few times previously (not my type at all) , but i wouldn't consider that she raped me we were both just hammered like.

Zulu

Widdershins wrote: »

Do they? I don't think so..

You're suggesting that children don't get condescended to?

And if that was the case thewn why did his attitude not change as I got older? Why is his attitude the same toward his wife and other women?

Perhaps you father is sexist; perhaps he's a jerk - I don't know. I'm not defending him. But lets accept that he is sexist...

I'm hardly perpetuating sexism-

Sure you are. Instead of acknowledging that he's sexist (a gender neutral term) and referring to him as such you are choosing to use a male specific insult. Even more, you are using a gender specific term that serves to stifle discourse, and silence men (only). Why is that? And how is that not perpetuating sexism?

It seems you're unwilling to acknowledge that sexism against girls and women exists.

Sigh. Why not fly off the deep end and leap to an impossible conclusion so? Would you also like to accuse me of victim blaming while you're at it??

I'm just talking about one of my own experiences.

If we are only discussing your own personal experience, then how can you assert that I'm "unwilling to acknowledge that sexism against girls and women exists"?
Rhetorical question.

I have not, and I am not, and I doubt I will in the future, deny that sexism exists either towards women, men, girls or boys. However, it deeply saddens me that, simply because I am a man (and that you've chosen to leap to a preposterous and hysterical claim) that I need to highlight that.

Widdershins

Zulu wrote: »

You're suggesting that children don't get condescended to?

Clearly you father is sexist. I'm not defending him.

Sure you are. Instead of acknowledging that he's sexist (a gender neutral term) and referring to him as such you are choosing to use a male specific insult. Even more, you are using a gender specific term that serves to stifle discourse, and silence men (only). Why is that? And how is that not perpetuating sexism?

Sigh. Why not fly off the deep end and leap to an impossible conclusion so? Would you also like to accuse me of victim blaming while you're at it??
If we are only discussing your own personal experience, then how can you assert that I'm "unwilling to acknowledge that sexism against girls and women exists"?
Rhetorical question.

I have not, and I am not, and I doubt I will in the future, deny that sexism exists either towards women, men, girls or boys. However, it deeply saddens me that, simply because I am a man (and that you've chosen to leap to a preposterous and hysterical claim) that I need to highlight that.

Some parents speak condescendingly, some simply take into account the limits imposed by the child's age and lack of experience. That's incomparable to treating a girl as if she's less capable than a boy.

The term mansplaining could not be more accurate *in his case*. That's how sexism manifests itself in his case. It's impossible to avoid a gender specific term when that's really the point. I think Louise is doing something similar, call it womansplaining if you like, and I don't approve of that, either.
I mentioned him because I know where the term comes from, and what it's really like to be treated as though you have a lesser capacity for comprehension because you're female, although I feel it's a term that is overused and men are inappropriately accused of doing it, at times. I don't see how it silences anyone, since nobody else has been accused of doing it.
The fact that you're offended that I gave it the name mansplaining without accusing many men of doing it, and you likened my experience to ordinary parenting, and ignored my adult experience,makes me think you're awfully resistant to the whole idea and want to get away from the fact that it happens at all.

Nor do you need to highlight that, since I've said as much already.

Zulu

Widdershins wrote: »

It's impossible to avoid a gender specific term when that's really the point.

So the *point* is to demonise the male as opposed to the action? (Ergo perpetuating sexism.)

I think Louise is doing something similar, call it womansplaining if you like, and I don't approve of that, either.

Can't we just use condescending? Why does it have to be genderedised?? Isn't dividing up the sexes perpetuating sexism???
I take issues with all of this because I'm egalitarian, and I genuinely see this as dividing people along gender lines, when I'd much prefer to treat people as people (not genders).

I don't see how it silences anyone, since nobody else has been accused of doing it.

It silences people in general because it inhibits them from explaining their thought process. If they are choosing to disagree, and explaining their thinking, it can be all to convenient for the likes to O'Neill et all to make the accusation of "mansplaining", completely disregarding a persons whole point of view in one quick fire, gender specific, insult. In fact, doing the same bloody condescending they're "highlighting" (and I assume trying to stop) ....but we're digressing, and I guess you already know this at some level.

The fact that you're offended

Not offended, no. I'm not that sensitive.

...makes me think you're awfully resistant to the whole idea and want to get away from the fact that it happens at all.

It's appreciated that you've spelt out *how* you've jumped to your conclusion - thanks, but your conclusion is not correct.

I'm not denying that people are condescended to because of their gender, in fact I identify plenty of examples of it. The point is how you are choosing to deal with it. I take issue with your approach of acknowledging bad behaviour and making it gender specific.

midnight city

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm the daughter of a mansplainer.

You didn't need anything explained to you from a parent? You fell out of the womb with all the knowledge you needed?

Widdershins

Zulu wrote: »

So the *point* is to demonise the male as opposed to the action? (Ergo perpetuating sexism.)
Can't we just use condescending? Why does it have to be genderedised?? Isn't dividing up the sexes perpetuating sexism???
I take issues with all of this because I'm egalitarian, and I genuinely see this as dividing people along gender lines, when I'd much prefer to treat people as people (not genders).

It silences people in general because it inhibits them from explaining their though process. If they are choosing to disagree, and explaining their thinking, it can be all to convenient for the likes to O'Neill et all to make the accusation of "mansplaining", completely disregarding a persons whole point of view in one quick fire, gender specific, insult. ....but we're digressing, and perhaps I'm mansplaining.

Not offended, no. I'm not that sensitive.
It's appreciated that you've spelt out *how* you've jumped to your conclusion - thanks, but your conclusion is not correct.

I'm not denying that people are condescended to because of their gender, in fact I identify plenty of examples of it. The point is how you are choosing to deal with it. I take issue with your approach of acknowledging bad behaviour and making it gender specific.

Because it was gender specific. I wasn't just being condescended to. I was being condescended to by a man who viewed everyone of my gender as genetically inferior. He wasn't just a condescending sort of person who talks down to people in general. It quite literally was patronising behaviour. I take an egalitarian approach too. That does not mean we should pretend there are no gender specific issue or that we are all the same in every aspect, making no reference to gender, for the sake of a false idea of equality.

And Louise is not just being condescending. She condescending to men in particular.

FortySeven

Widdershins wrote: »

Because it was gender specific. I wasn't just being condescended to. I was being condescended to by a man who viewed everyone of my gender as genetically inferior. He wasn't just a condescending sort of person who talks down to people in general. It quite literally was patronising behaviour. I take an egalitarian approach too. That does not mean we should pretend there are no gender specific issue or that we are all the same in every aspect, making no reference to gender, for the sake of a false idea of equality.

And Louise is not just being condescending. She condescending to men in particular.

Plenty mothers are condescending to their boys. For being boys. 'He can't help it, it's in his DNA' It's not a gender thing really unless you are only experiencing it for yourself.

The bigger picture shows it happening to both sexes.

Widdershins

midnight city wrote: »

You didn't need anything explained to you from a parent? You fell out of the womb with all the knowledge you needed?

If you cannot discern the difference between speaking to a daughter differently to how you'd speak to a son, in everything, then I can't make it any clearer.
Nowhere did I say I have a problem with explanations..they are essential and an everyday thing with children. Maybe your own parents didn't do enough of it!

Widdershins

FortySeven wrote: »

Plenty mothers are condescending to their boys. For being boys. 'He can't help it, it's in his DNA' It's not a gender thing really unless you are only experiencing it for yourself.

The bigger picture shows it happening to both sexes.

I know they do. And to adult sons, too. And it's blatantly gender specific.
I see it all the time with a certain older friend when she talks about the 'hilarious' little mistakes her adult son makes.
So there are two issues here, not none.

Zulu

Widdershins wrote: »

I take an egalitarian approach too. That does not mean we should pretend there are no gender specific issue or that we are all the same in every aspect, making no reference to gender, for the sake of a false idea of equality.

What you've set out above does not, in my eyes, equate to a valid justification for "Femspeak" - this bullsh*t Newspeak that is being created to perpetuate gender divides.

The term is pejorative, and created simply to insult and stifle men. Why? What purpose does this serve in an egalitarian society? While we are not the same, we can be treated the same, can't we? Isn't that the point? And creating insults to treat men differently isn't helpful, progressive, or egalitarian.

This isn't complicated stuff; why do I need to labouring this?

Zulu

Widdershins wrote: »

So there are two issues here, not none.

No one said "none".

There's one issue here, not two.
One: The issue of persons being condescended to due to their sex.

Mortpourvelo

So no, "victim blaming" eh ?

Sorry but that's naive feminist guff.

Here goes "sometimes it is the woman's fault". There, said it.

We wanted equality, right ?

So, you go out for the night - match laddo drink for drink, both caned to **** and decide to "hold hands in a special way".

Both drunk, both up for it, but guess who'll be doing a 5 stretch in the 'Joy ? Not little violated Jacinta eh ?

Widdershins

Zulu wrote: »

No one said "none".

There's one issue here, not two.
One: The issue of persons being condescended to due to their sex.

So would you be more content if I said my father condescended to me because I'm female? It seems to be the mansplaining term that bothers you. I think it was your own original comment I took it from, to describe what it's like when it really happens, since most people think it's an exaggeration of Louise's.

FortySeven

Zulu wrote: »

No one said "none".

There's one issue here, not two.
One: The issue of persons being condescended to due to their sex.

I do see your point. Perhaps a compromise would be to say we have a collective issue. I could certainly live with that.

Although, whilst there are exceptions, some traits are gender specific I suppose.

Widdershins

Zulu wrote: »

What you've set out above does not, in my eyes, equate to a valid justification for "Femspeak" - this bullsh*t Newspeak that is being created to perpetuate gender divides.

The term is pejorative, and created simply to insult and stifle men. Why? What purpose does this serve in an egalitarian society? While we are not the same, we can be treated the same, can't we? Isn't that the point? And creating insults to treat men differently isn't helpful, progressive, or egalitarian.

This isn't complicated stuff; why do I need to labouring this?

It's a descriptive term for when we are not treated the same. We need descriptive terms. Like labels, they are useful sometimes.

P.S In case there's any confusion, this is not about taking instruction or being informed by a male person who knows more about a subject than I do.

Zulu

FortySeven wrote: »

I do see your point. Perhaps a compromise would be to say we have a collective issue. I could certainly live with that.

Although, whilst there are exceptions, some traits are gender specific I suppose.

Exactly. We should be striving to "correct men's behaviour" - where, lets face it, thats what this is all about, because overwhelmingly men are like women in so far as they aren't raping murdering peaodafiles who need to be "fixed" for the greater of society.

Sure a handful of men are jerks. But equally a handful of women are jerks. And the best way to sort out the jerks, is by sorting out the jerks (not the men-jerks or the women-jerks). One problem, not two. And looping this back around, it isn't a jerk-culture that needs addressing.

Widdershins

Zulu wrote: »

Exactly. We should be striving to "correct men's behaviour" - where, lets face it, thats what this is all about, because overwhelmingly men are like women in so far as they aren't raping murdering peaodafiles who need to be "fixed" for the greater of society.

Sure a handful of men are jerks. But equally a handful of women are jerks. And the best way to sort out the jerks, is by sorting out the jerks (not the men-jerks or the women-jerks). One problem, not two. And looping this back around, it isn't a jerk-culture that needs addressing.

No there isnt a jerk culture or a man jerk culture. My father was so unusual that, as I said already, it shocks me anew every time I deal with him.
I had an unusual experience and I know it. I wasn't trying to prove a point about men with my original reply to your mansplaining comment, it just reminded me of my own rather unusual father.

For the doubters, my other half and most other people who have witnessed my interactions with my father have commented on the way he still speaks to me.

Zulu

Widdershins wrote: »

It's a descriptive term for when we are not treated the same. We need descriptive terms. Like labels, they are useful sometimes.

Do we? The issue is being "condescended to".
The difference you claim is that it's a man doing it to you because you are a woman.
And you assert we "need" a term for this.
Say you are correct - we do "need" this level of descriptive terminology. Where does this stop?
And why do we need to genderdise language?
To me it's needlessly creating gender divides.

Zulu

Widdershins wrote: »

My father was so unusual that, as I said already, it shocks me anew every time I deal with him.
I had an unusual experience and I know it.

Ok. I'll be honest. I'm struggling. If he's so unusual why do we need a gender specific insult for him?

me_right_one

Zulu, fcuk off. You're making an arguement out of nothing.

buried

It gets to the stage in these Louise O'Neil threads where trying to read it is like getting on an upside down waltzers machine after drinking a bottle of rum and taking a nuclear bong hit

Widdershins

Zulu wrote: »

Ok. I'll be honest. I'm struggling. If he's so unusual why do we need a gender specific insult for him?

It's not for him it's for that behaviour. I meant we need descriptive terms in general but why should it be less worth a specific description than something that's more common. I went to lengths to describe the behaviour and yet you reply with ''you claim'' it was done because I'm female. I don't see why it's so hard to believe.
Anyway you're entitled to your opinion, fair enough!

Topcat32

buried wrote: »

It gets to the stage in these Louise O'Neil threads where trying to read it is like getting on an upside down waltzers machine after drinking a bottle of rum and taking a nuclear bong hit

Im suprised that they are not the most well read threads in the history of internet forums then.

Zulu

Widdershins wrote: »

... and yet you reply with ''you claim'' it was done because I'm female. I don't see why it's so hard to believe.
Anyway you're entitled to your opinion, fair enough!

You are claiming though!?! BTW I believe you. I'm not doubting you.

You seem to be wilfully ignoring my point.

Zulu

me_right_one wrote: »

Zulu, fcuk off.

Is ****ing off a cultural thing?
It's called conversation. It helps people to inform their opinions. You could try it out if you like. It's way better than being aggressive or rude to people. And you never know, you might learn something.

midnight city

Mansplaining is a charged word and much abused.

Mortpourvelo

midnight city wrote: »

Mansplaining is a charged word and much abused.

It's a bloody ridiculous word IMHO!!!

Potatoeman

Widdershins wrote: »

It's not for him it's for that behaviour. I meant we need descriptive terms in general but why should it be less worth a specific description than something that's more common. I went to lengths to describe the behaviour and yet you reply with ''you claim'' it was done because I'm female. I don't see why it's so hard to believe.
Anyway you're entitled to your opinion, fair enough!

Angry feminist with daddy issues, what are the odds.