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

tomofson

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Louise is pretty good looking though, so in that case it isn't it.

I don't know what she looks like but I'm guessing maybe thats why she is in the spotlight to give feminism a sort of appeal to the more attractive types...

I wouldn't imagine her audience would be all that good looking. Think real life versions of patty and selma from the simpsons.

goose2005

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

wow. you dont like her clothes so her opinion can be ignored? I think you've just proven her point for her.

A man hosting a programme about serious crime would be expected to be dressed in a very serious manner.

pumpkin4life

tomofson wrote: »

I don't know what she looks like but I'm guessing maybe thats why she is in the spotlight to give feminism a sort of appeal to the more attractive types...

I wouldn't imagine her audience would be all that good looking. Think real life versions of patti and selma from the simpsons.

She might be too attractive for that? I think she's marketed towards a more damaged self sabotaging type of person, psychologically damaged rather than looks orientated. The crudest way of putting it would be the one you know that "if she did this to her personality/looks she'd be very attractive" but there's something not quite right there and your gut is telling you steer well clear.

Wrote this on Louise earlier:

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Distant mother/father relationship/a lack of parental bonding. Was raised when she was a kid in a creche possibly.
Manipulated on an emotional level when she was a kid. Relationship with boyfriend is emotionally very distant/disparate.
Smart but not smart smart.
Education system with no proper differentiation between right and wrong.
Ended up in fights but had to dull emotions in relation to this.
Exposed to porn/hypersexualised at a young age.
Constructed a false self to align with her parents wishes. This is what attracts a lot of smart but not smart smart women to feminism because its easy to grasp, but easier still to make sound intellectual/profound. This achievement, grandiose false self personality means that when her second book or whatever flops, she'll have a meltdown.

How do you trigger meltdowns in people like this? Pity them.

You can even see it in her Twitter picture:

https://twitter.com/oneilllo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

That's a dark picture to use as a Twitter handle right?

Or maybe I'm reading far too much intae this shìte.

Muhammed_1

Catholic priests represented a rape culture in Ireland in the past.

Reports in the media recently about a child abuse ring at the top of the HSE. Another rape culture.

Islam is effectively a rape culture, and it exists in Ireland.

But there isn't a rape culture of the type that Louise talks about.

tomofson

pumpkin4life wrote: »

She might be too attractive for that? I think she's marketed towards a more damaged self sabotaging type of person, psychologically damaged rather than looks orientated. The crudest way of putting it would be the one you know that "if she did this to her personality/looks she'd be very attractive" but there's something not quite right there and your gut is telling you steer well clear.

Wrote this on Louise earlier:

You can even see it in her Twitter picture:

https://twitter.com/oneilllo?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

That's a dark picture to use as a Twitter handle right?

Or maybe I'm reading far too much intae this shìte.

Yeah she looks somewhat demented in her picture, but then again it is a black and white picture from a distance.

mzungu

tomofson wrote: »

Yeah she looks somewhat demented in her picture, but then again it is a black and white picture from a distance.

What does it matter about her picture? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

me_right_one

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Catholic priests represented a rape culture in Ireland in the past.

Reports in the media recently about a child abuse ring at the top of the HSE. Another rape culture.

Islam is effectively a rape culture, and it exists in Ireland.

But there isn't a rape culture of the type that Louise talks about.

Here, feck off. Islam is not a rape culture, Catholicism is not a rape culture, and the HSE isnt a rape culture. There may have been isolated incidents, but that does not make a rape "culture" no more than isolated rapists make one.

I'll never understand the eagerness to tar everyone with the same brush once they're part of an institution. Thats just as bad as LON blaming all men for the actions of a few.

Muhammed_1

No, I'm not saying the entire organisations are rape cultures. However...

It was reported recently in the newspapers that there is some suspicion of a rape ring existing at the top of the HSE. This is connected to the girl in a care home and something about Michael Noonan. A complaint was made in the early 1990s, nothing was done, and the girl continued to be abused for years. The reason suggested for why nothing was done was complicity at the top of the HSE.

The catholic priests were pretty widespread, and the knowledge of problems went very high, perhaps all the way to the top. Priests were moved from parish to parish. That does come very close to being a rape culture in the Catholic religion itself.

Islam has no central authority.
Therefore, people rely only on the Koran and it allows for child rape, and for rape in general. I'm not sure if the Koran mandates rape in any circumstances. But it's definitely true to say that some Muslims today think they are required or permitted by God in the Koran to rape women and children. So, yes, it could be argued that Islam is a rape culture.

A rape culture could be consistent with Islam whereas a rape culture is not consistent with the Irish Constitution for example. In other words, Islam doesn't rule out rape, whereas the Irish Constitution more or less does.

(I'm only using the Irish Constitution here as an example of a system or ideaology)

me_right_one

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

A rape culture could be consistent with Islam whereas a rape culture is not consistent with the Irish Constitution for example. In other words, Islam doesn't rule out rape, whereas the Irish Constitution more or less does.

(I'm only using the Irish Constitution here as an example of a system or ideaology)

So does the Bible, the HSE, and the moral standard of your average Muslim. But go ahead, there's plenty of tar still left in the barrell.

pumpkin4life

mzungu wrote: »

What does it matter about her picture? It has absolutely nothing to do with anything.

More and more Louise O Neills and Una Mullalys are cropping up round the place.

It would be great to have a theory on why they are cropping up.

Looks (for both men and women) feed into that.

Zulu

pumpkin4life wrote: »

More and more Louise O Neills and Una Mullalys are cropping up round the place.

It would be great to have a theory on why they are cropping up.

Looks (for both men and women) feed into that.

Because they can make a living by peddling their hate. I thought that was obvious. Imagine getting a salary to write divisive drivel under the guise of promoting diversity.

midnight city

pumpkin4life wrote: »

More and more Louise O Neills and Una Mullalys are cropping up round the place.

It would be great to have a theory on why they are cropping up.

Looks (for both men and women) feed into that.

Economics. It pays so it will be done. People like Louise and Una get plenty of views and clicks which sells advertising.

pumpkin4life

midnight city wrote: »

Economics. It pays so it will be done. People like Louise and Una get plenty of views and clicks which sells advertising.

Yeah I get that, but why is the demand there? There are a lot of people who think along the same lines as these people. It isn't just clickbait.

Louise's audience is exactly like her and there's a reason for that.

me_right_one

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Yeah I get that, but why is the demand there? There are a lot of people who think along the same lines as these people. It isn't just clickbait.

Louise's audience is exactly like her and there's a reason for that.

Most people are just sheep. They want to fit in. So if something is promoted as positive in the media, the majority of people will automatically agree, without questioning it, just so they wont be the odd one out. Its sheer lack of character and leadership qualities.

For example, look at how popular tattoos have become lately, all because David Beckham got a "sleeve" done. One time, tattoos were the equivalent of having a swastika on yourself! Now they're trendy! (And I think thats going to die an absolute death someday soon!!!)

Thats my take on it anyway.

Zulu

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Louise's audience is exactly like her and there's a reason for that.

Ah, so your question is: why are there angry disenfranchised women who feel they are owed something?

I don't know. I'm guessing we are all angry because we were all sold a pup. More specifically, along with being sold a pup, women are continually told that there's a wage gap, that there's a rape culture, that there isn't 50% representation in politics etc., so they can focus their anger.

What's the pup we were all sold? Modern economic life. For the most of us, only one of our parents had to work. For the most of us, that single salary provided for a family, a nice house with a garden, and a real tangible end to a mortgage, along with a pension at a sensible age for retirement.
Today few can afford to live off a single salary. Even with two salaries its difficult to afford a similar house. Jobs do not have even close to the same security, and we'll be lucky to retire. So people are angry. Throw in the BS studies on "wage gaps"... ...and to compound thing there appears to be a generation of entitled people coming through who are simply spoilt little brats.

Zulu

Women were sold another pup - that they could have it both ways: Career and Children.

Choose a career and well you're outsourcing your children, so good luck with that; choose to be a stay-at-home mum and well you're just a stay-at-home mum. Guilt vs Confidence.

mzungu

pumpkin4life wrote: »

More and more Louise O Neills and Una Mullalys are cropping up round the place.

It would be great to have a theory on why they are cropping up.

Looks (for both men and women) feed into that.

Well, the post I quoted a few prior ones were attacking the appearance of both Louise O'Neill and her followers. In my view their looks (or anybody else's) do not come into it at all, it is merely just the ideas that are up for debate.

Widdershins

''This train doesn't have a first class carriage.

Will just have to set myself on fire. No other option.''

She's not lying about her privilege

DEFTLEFTHAND

mzungu wrote: »

Well, the post I quoted a few prior ones were attacking the appearance of both Louise O'Neill and her followers. In my view their looks (or anybody else's) do not come into it at all, it is merely just the ideas that are up for debate.

I think what they're getting is that unattractive women may be drawn towards this third wave movement because they've been ignored by men all their lives and feel upset and bitter about it.

I don't fully subscribe to this theory but I could see how it may been a contributory factor in certain individual cases.

LLMMLL

orubiru wrote: »

A good few years back, when I was still at college, I was in London for the weekend with friends. After getting pretty much blind drunk I decided to walk back to the hotel myself. I crossed a bridge (not exactly sure which one) where I was threatened, mugged and then assaulted.

So when I had to tell my parents what had happened they more or less said exactly what you have paraphrased here pretty much "what the F were you thinking".

One of my friends was not quite so angry but was asking why the hell I didn't just get a taxi and well basically saying I was an idiot for walking back alone in such a drunken state.

My GF at the time was utterly furious and calling me all the reckless so and sos under the sun.

I got plenty of sympathy, sure. I got lots of "what the hell were you thinking" criticism too. Was that wrong? If I am being honest, I kind of do blame myself. If I had gotten a taxi that evening instead of staggering around a strange city at night then I would have been fine. People were only saying that maybe I shouldn't drink so much and maybe I should have prioritised my safety.

Is that "Mugging Culture"? Is that "Assault Culture"?

Video games like Grand Theft Auto allow players to assault people on city streets at night for fun. Movies like Batman show the "hero" of the story beating up muggers but the mugging victims are just treated like hollow shells with no character, just there to be saved by the hero.

Is that "Mugging Culture"? Is that "Assault Culture"?

There been a few responses along the same lines so I'll just respond to this one.

There are a number of posts on this thread that are saying that if anyone makes the lightest suggestion that rape is acceptable that everyone in society will immediately shut them down.

I'm just pointing out that that's not true. It is victim blaming. An you're right. You were victim blamed when you got mugged. I'm not saying it only happens with rape.

But one similarity does not mean attitudes to assault and rape are the same which is why I would not say we had an assault culture.

LLMMLL

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This "victim blaming" talk is getting to the point where people are being demonised for giving sound advice. Regarding the mugging example, of course it was a bad idea to walk home though an unknown area alone while drunk. People aren't wrong to point this out. It doesn't mean they think the person deserved to be mugged, or that they're gloating about it, and most importantly it doesn't mean the person who got mugged is to blame.

Asking people to take precautions because there are assholes out there isn't blaming the victim. It's simple common sense. In an ideal world it wouldn't be necessary, but we don't live in an ideal world.

Yeah but nobody is offering advice or trying to be helpful. Someone going "what was she doing out there is clearly
Not offering advice". It is victim blaming

The guys parents weren't givjng him advice. It sounds like the tone was "what the hell were you thinking" they were blaming him.

Wibbs

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Yeah I get that, but why is the demand there?

Much of it I would say is that people like to be outraged in the safety of their own home and safe culture. Kinda like people will pay to go on roller coasters or watch scary films to get that frisson of safe fear. Clickbait plays into that kinda thing.

There are a lot of people who think along the same lines as these people. It isn't just clickbait.

Louise's audience is exactly like her and there's a reason for that.

Aye, I would say IMH of course, that one reason is that we, most of us actually live very comfortable lives in a western liberal society. Because of this our natural human baseline of stress levels are reduced, so some may tend to over react and that's how we get this excess of outrage.

Woodhenge

pumpkin4life wrote:

Economics. It pays so it will be done. People like Louise and Una get plenty of views and clicks which sells advertising.
Yeah I get that, but why is the demand there? There are a lot of people who think along the same lines as these people. It isn't just clickbait.

Louise's audience is exactly like her and there's a reason for that.

I think a big driver of this movement is the fallout of the explosion in casual sex. For men it is a win-win, get sex with few responsibilities. For women, sex on tap for the best male mates has seen them lose out. Scarcity of sex is their greatest strategy, they have what men want and can negotiate a better relationship and more investment in them when it is scarce. This is particularly true for less attractive women, men are less willing to settle when a tipsy, attractive partner could be on the cards next weekend.

The problem for feminists is they can't be seen to want a return to the prudish past where female sexuality was controlled, so they have cleverly switched all the risk and stigma over to men. They want men to be too terrified to risk casual sex. They want to kill the excitement and thrill of on-demand casual sex that men have enjoyed for over a decade. They are targeting demand rather than supply. The thought of men slipping away scot free after winning in the casual sex merry-go-round drives them crazy.

suicide_circus

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-38030182

This is rape culture.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

Much of it I would say is that people like to be outraged in the safety of their own home and safe culture. Kinda like people will pay to go on roller coasters or watch scary films to get that frisson of safe fear. Clickbait plays into that kinda thing. Aye, I would say IMH of course, that one reason is that we, most of us actually live very comfortable lives in a western liberal society. Because of this our natural human baseline of stress levels are reduced, so some may tend to over react and that's how we get this excess of outrage.

Interestingly, some studies found that anger is the motion that spreads easiest over social media (joy was a distant second). And the folks who get the "rage" from all this stuff online? Well, it would appear that these were people who also get the "rage" IIRL also.

So, while it might appear that there is tonnes of outrage, it is mostly being done by people who would be susceptible to fly off the handle for any minor inconvenience in the real world.

http://www.firstpost.com/living/outrage-in-the-time-of-social-media-how-facebook-twitter-enable-and-empower-rage-2952036.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/06/fashion/social-media-some-susceptible-to-internet-outrage.html?_r=2

midnight city

Wibbs wrote: »

Much of it I would say is that people like to be outraged in the safety of their own home and safe culture. Kinda like people will pay to go on roller coasters or watch scary films to get that frisson of safe fear. Clickbait plays into that kinda thing. Aye, I would say IMH of course, that one reason is that we, most of us actually live very comfortable lives in a western liberal society. Because of this our natural human baseline of stress levels are reduced, so some may tend to over react and that's how we get this excess of outrage.

I tried not to click into them for a while because i didn't want my clicks to be feeding the industry. But i couldn't resist sometimes. There is definitely a bit of titillation in reading an article you know is going to annoy you. I also enjoy the comment sections below if they have them.

darkdubh

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/799756455649955840

ZeroThreat

darkdubh wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/799756455649955840

hmm O'Neill seems to be an attention seeking narcissist above all else.

voz es

I like the concept of realistic equalism and not petty divisionism and old boys clubs.

LLMMLL

Another thing I've seen posted on this thread a few times is that if a man behaves sexually inappropriate with a woman then his friends or other men will immediately shut him down, take him away etc.

I recently was discussing sexual harrassment with a colleague. He believed it didn't happen that often. I started to read an everyday sexism website to him and he had to stop me after the tenth story he was so shocked.

I don't think he believed the stories so he asked his new girlfriend. Now this girl is quite anti-feminist and has no interest in social justice. She told him she's harrassed all the time and a particular guy in her mixed male/female group of friends is constantly harassing the girls, groping them, squeezing their breasts. Now while she finds it extremely annoying, it seems all the girls have just decided to put up with him and not make an issue out of it.

If this thread was to be believed the lads in the group would have ostracised him years ago. But of course, in the real world, everyone (male and female) have just decided to turn a blind eye.

Because that's the real culture. Ignore the problem and hope it goes away. Sure he's only a young lad. This idea that everyone speaks up against rape, and all inappropriate behaviours are automatically censored are complete make believe.