Louise O Neill on rape culture.

onthemitch · 21-11-2016 06:18PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Well thats the whole problem. There is NOBODY LET counter anything with non-liberal views these days. Whatever you think about gay marriage, abortion, or third wave SJW-type feminism, if you stick your head above the parapet and say you're not so sure about these things you get publicly ostracised straight away.

Or, y'know, you get elected. I think you can stop prattling on about the liberals, "PC gone mad" and unconfronted SJWs – if you are the "other", as in right-wing conservatives who think sexism is a bit of a laugh and feminists are man-haters with penis envy, then congratulations: you're winning.

The question is: are you making the world better or worse?

me_right_one · 21-11-2016 06:25PM

onthemitch wrote: »

Or, y'know, you get elected. I think you can stop prattling on about the liberals, "PC gone mad" and unconfronted SJWs – if you are the "other", as in right-wing conservatives who think sexism is a bit of a laugh and feminists are man-haters with penis envy, then congratulations: you're winning.

The question is: are you making the world better or worse?

Well, I'm none of those things. I am just a normal fella, who thinks that "Panti Bliss" is the opposite extreme of Donald Trump. They are both grotesque manifestations of our first world, and I dont want either one having an input into MY life.

I want someone in the middle, but the problem is, if its NOT a Panti Bliss type who gets voted in, then I'm branded a: Quote "right-wing conservatives who think sexism is a bit of a laugh and feminists are man-haters with penis envy". YOU wrote that about me onthemitch.

Ya see?

There are people out there dying of hunger, and LON and her ilk think that there is a rape culture here, and that wearing tiger pyjamas will cure it. I really despair sometimes.

onthemitch · 21-11-2016 06:31PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Well, I'm none of those things. I am just a normal fella, who thinks that "Panti Bliss" is the opposite extreme of Donald Trump. They are both grotesque manifestations of our first world, and I dont want either one having an input into MY life.

I want someone in the middle, but the problem is, if its NOT a Panti Bliss type who gets voted in, then I'm branded a: Quote "right-wing conservatives who think sexism is a bit of a laugh and feminists are man-haters with penis envy". YOU wrote that about me onthemitch.

Ya see?

There are people out there dying of hunger, and LON and her ilk think that there is a rape culture here, and that wearing tiger pyjamas will cure it. I really despair sometimes.

The fact that there are people dying of hunger is totally irrelevant. If (to use a facile example) you slam your finger in a door, does it hurt less if you remind yourself that someone just got hit by a bomb in Aleppo?

Life isn't a zero sum game, and focusing on one particular injustice doesn't mean that you're (necessarily) ignoring all other injustices, it just means that you're choosing one thing to campaign and be passionate about – realistically, it's not possible to care about all things at all times, and ANYTHING that is unjust is probably better than something else somewhere else in the world. It's just such a BS argument.

Also, this obsession with Louise's tiger PJs is insane. So she tweeted a pic of her in a tiger print outfit – is this really what you want to spend your time talking about? There are people out there dying of hunger, you know, it might serve you well to direct those energies there.

The sad thing is, feminism IS in the middle. You know what (we) feminists want? Equality. We want women to be treated as men are, and (therefore) for men to get the advantages we get. A lot of us campaign for equal paternity leave; we want to dismantle the patriarchal ideals that mean men suffer when they don't feel like they fulfil a "manly" role. Feminism works for everyone.

I don't really see how, if Donald Trump is at one end of your scale, Panti is at the other – what is your issue with Panti, or Louise, for that matter?

It's so bizarre how obsessive people get about a woman who has essentially started using her voice to campaign for equality for women, to point out the injustices that sadly persist in Ireland in 2016, and is unapologetic about it, refusing to pander to the gentle menfolk who "but not all men!" at her all the time. I just don't get it.

The Rape of Lucretia · 21-11-2016 06:37PM

me_right_one wrote: »

.......who never actually get to say what they and everybody else is thinking. They can only provide a watered down version, and even at that, they're ridiculed just for having an opinion.

Not ridiculed for having an opinion, but ridiculed for the opinion they have.
Correctly as it happens.

me_right_one · 21-11-2016 06:37PM

onthemitch wrote: »

The fact that there are people dying of hunger is totally irrelevant. If (to use a facile example) you slam your finger in a door, does it hurt less if you remind yourself that someone just got hit by a bomb in Aleppo?

Life isn't a zero sum game, and focusing on one particular injustice doesn't mean that you're (necessarily) ignoring all other injustices, it just means that you're choosing one thing to campaign and be passionate about – realistically, it's not possible to care about all things at all times, and ANYTHING that is unjust is probably better than something else somewhere else in the world. It's just such a BS argument.

Also, this obsession with Louise's tiger PJs is insane. So she tweeted a pic of her in a tiger print outfit – is this really what you want to spend your time talking about? There are people out there dying of hunger, you know, it might serve you well to direct those energies there.

The sad thing is, feminism IS in the middle. You know what (we) feminists want? Equality. We want women to be treated as men are, and (therefore) for men to get the advantages we get. A lot of us campaign for equal paternity leave; we want to dismantle the patriarchal ideals that mean men suffer when they don't feel like they fulfil a "manly" role. Feminism works for everyone.

I don't really see how, if Donald Trump is at one end of your scale, Panti is at the other – what is your issue with Panti, or Louise, for that matter?

It's so bizarre how obsessive people get about a woman who has essentially started using her voice to campaign for equality for women, to point out the injustices that sadly persist in Ireland in 2016, and is unapologetic about it, refusing to pander to the gentle menfolk who "but not all men!" at her all the time. I just don't get it.

Its clear now that you havent read all the thread up to this point. I know there's a lot in it, but you cant just wade in now and expect to be up to date. ALL of the questions and points you raised have been covered.

onthemitch · 21-11-2016 06:39PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Its clear now that you havent read all the thread up to this point. I know there's a lot in it, but you cant just wade in now and expect to be up to date. ALL of the questions and points you raised have been covered.

Fair enough – no, I haven't. I've read chunks, but it's quadrupled in size since I last logged on and I'm too depressed at the 10 pages I read to go any further!

LLMMLL · 21-11-2016 06:43PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Firstly, not everyone in Irish society has a platform, and certainly not one as highlighted as Una Mullallys or LON's. But anyway, DQ and BOB wouldnt write KILL ALL GAYS because thats not what they or their supporters think. But LON can write I HATE MEN on her twitter feed, and whine like she has actual problems and guess what? Her supporters, like your good self, dont see the hipocracy! Imagine that!

What's that got to do with the point I'm arguing? People with right wing or conservatir views are not silenced and ostracised.

me_right_one · 21-11-2016 06:48PM

onthemitch wrote: »

Fair enough – no, I haven't. I've read chunks, but it's quadrupled in size since I last logged on and I'm too depressed at the 10 pages I read to go any further!

Well basically to sum up the thread, yes, feminism is good. But LON is mis-representing mainstream feminism to a detrimental degree. Genuine feminists have posted on here alarmed at what she is doing. The voices of people in the middle are being muted while extremists on both sides are having a field day.

LON is an example of a feminist who does harm to her own cause, kinda like Willie Frazer is to unionists and Dessie O'Hare is to nationalists.

The Rape of Lucretia · 21-11-2016 06:48PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

God bless your eyesight!

I'm sure if Ms O'Neill is following this thread, she must regard it as a great validation of her self-obessiveness. 17 days and 1,560 posts from 210 posters, all ending up in a detailed discussion of her crotch . . .

The August one on her was better crack really. Less is-it-a-zip-is-it-a-todger type discussion. Even had her sister involved and merited an article from Lou a few weeks later.

Widdershins · 21-11-2016 06:57PM

me_right_one wrote: »

............ Genuine feminists have posted on here alarmed at what she is doing.
...............

Yes and we get painted as ''anti feminists'' by people like her.

retro:electro · 22-11-2016 12:56AM

Subscribing to Louise's ideology risks doing far more damage to our society than good. She is a self confessed man hater, and her supposed promotion of gender equality is nothing more than desired female superiority. She doesn't want to be equal to men, she wants female advantage. Every time she opens her mouth she further proves my point. No man in this country would get away with the way she goes on, nor would he have a lynch mob of supporters emphatically advocating and applauding his nonsence position.

retro:electro · 22-11-2016 01:31AM

onthemitch wrote: »

The fact that there are people dying of hunger is totally irrelevant. If (to use a facile example) you slam your finger in a door, does it hurt less if you remind yourself that someone just got hit by a bomb in Aleppo?

Life isn't a zero sum game, and focusing on one particular injustice doesn't mean that you're (necessarily) ignoring all other injustices, it just means that you're choosing one thing to campaign and be passionate about – realistically, it's not possible to care about all things at all times, and ANYTHING that is unjust is probably better than something else somewhere else in the world. It's just such a BS argument.

Also, this obsession with Louise's tiger PJs is insane. So she tweeted a pic of her in a tiger print outfit – is this really what you want to spend your time talking about? There are people out there dying of hunger, you know, it might serve you well to direct those energies there.

The sad thing is, feminism IS in the middle. You know what (we) feminists want? Equality. We want women to be treated as men are, and (therefore) for men to get the advantages we get. A lot of us campaign for equal paternity leave; we want to dismantle the patriarchal ideals that mean men suffer when they don't feel like they fulfil a "manly" role. Feminism works for everyone.

I don't really see how, if Donald Trump is at one end of your scale, Panti is at the other – what is your issue with Panti, or Louise, for that matter?

It's so bizarre how obsessive people get about a woman who has essentially started using her voice to campaign for equality for women, to point out the injustices that sadly persist in Ireland in 2016, and is unapologetic about it, refusing to pander to the gentle menfolk who "but not all men!" at her all the time. I just don't get it.

The narrative she's peddling does nothing only create more of a divide than already exists. I think the majority of her followers have no idea what they're actually subscribing to by promoting her bs. They hear this confident and aggressive woman ready and willing discuss important and controversial societal issues and they think "yea great, women! Equality! Woo!!", and that is not me being ignorant or patronising. I have seen some of the mentions she gets on Twitter and it's depressing. I'm all for gender equality, and I think the majority of posters here are too, we just cannot get on board with the horse sh1t that comes out of that ones mouth. For me, gender equality isn't underpinned by the need to demote or antagonise male status, but for Louise the erosion of male status in our society is detrimental in order to receive any perceived benefits, in fact she sees it as conducive to its success.

Grayson · 22-11-2016 04:08AM

Widdershins wrote: »

Yes and we get painted as ''anti feminists'' by people like her.

Then don't care what she says. If I hear someone on the alt right say that feminists are men hating scum I'll think he's an idiot. If I hear someone who says they're a feminist and they say something stupid, I'll think they're an idiot.

Widdershins · 22-11-2016 04:14AM

Grayson wrote: »

Then don't care what she says. If I hear someone on the alt right say that feminists are men hating scum I'll think he's an idiot. If I hear someone who says they're a feminist and they say something stupid, I'll think they're an idiot.

Oh, I don't. It was said wryly.

Widdershins · 22-11-2016 01:11PM

gizmo555 wrote: »

God bless your eyesight!

I'm sure if Ms O'Neill is following this thread, she must regard it as a great validation of her self-obessiveness. 17 days and 1,560 posts from 210 posters, all ending up in a detailed discussion of her crotch . . .

I thought it was time to put an end to it.

RonFan · 23-11-2016 02:53AM

When you open the flood gates of the free market i.e. laissez-faire capitalism, a minority of the people inevitably get a disproportionate share of the resources, and the majority become resentful and champion ideas like communism. When you open the floodgate of the sexual mores, a minority of the men inevitably end up getting a massively disproportionate share of the sex leaving the rest frustrated and likely leading to more assaults and so forth. Is this an explanation for "rape culture"? Is it analogous to right-wingers complaining about communists, and their desire to take "what's theirs" via theft?

This might seem initially crude but upon deeper reflection I do think it can be seen to be a very valid analogy.

mzungu · 23-11-2016 10:29AM

RonFan wrote: »

When you open the floodgate of the sexual mores, a minority of the men inevitably end up getting a massively disproportionate share of the sex leaving the rest frustrated and likely leading to more assaults and so forth. Is this an explanation for "rape culture"? Is it analogous to right-wingers complaining about communists, and their desire to take "what's theirs" via theft?

This might seem initially crude but upon deeper reflection I do think it can be seen to be a very valid analogy.

That is not a valid analogy at all. You seem to be buying into the idea that the vast majority of men in the world are sexually frustrated because a minority are getting all the sex. Do you have anything to back this up?

Furthermore, for your analogy to stand up to scrutiny, there would had to have been little to no sexual assaults prior to the time when sexual liberation took hold. We all know that this is not the case.

So, I don't believe sexual assaults can be explained by simply transplanting capitalist and communist economic models into the equation. It completely neglects the complex realities of matter.

pumpkin4life · 23-11-2016 10:34AM

RonFan wrote: »

When you open the flood gates of the free market i.e. laissez-faire capitalism, a minority of the people inevitably get a disproportionate share of the resources, and the majority become resentful and champion ideas like communism. When you open the floodgate of the sexual mores, a minority of the men inevitably end up getting a massively disproportionate share of the sex leaving the rest frustrated and likely leading to more assaults and so forth. Is this an explanation for "rape culture"? Is it analogous to right-wingers complaining about communists, and their desire to take "what's theirs" via theft?

This might seem initially crude but upon deeper reflection I do think it can be seen to be a very valid analogy.

Michel Houellebecq has spent his whole writing career arguing that point.

Online porn has changed a lot of that though.

Muhammed_1 · 23-11-2016 11:58AM

There is no consent in the animal kingdom. None.

Humans are the only animal who consent.

There are forms of consent within the animal kingdom.

Females can attempt to frustrate the union, by fighting, or moving away. We see it all the time in the nature programs. That could be considered as a lack of consent.

But the males are often bigger and stronger and they don't always take no for an answer.

So the female has a choice. Frustrate the union and perhaps get injured in a fight, or allow the union.

Many females allow the union as fighting can easily lead to injury.

Why are humans expected to be so different?

Some human males simply take what they want, as if they were still on the savannah. And some females recognise the futility of fighting back.

ohnonotgmail · 23-11-2016 12:04PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

There is no consent in the animal kingdom. None.

Humans are the only animal who consent.

There are forms of consent within the animal kingdom.

Females can attempt to frustrate the union, by fighting, or moving away. We see it all the time in the nature programs. That could be considered as a lack of consent.

But the males are often bigger and stronger and they don't always take no for an answer.

So the female has a choice. Frustrate the union and perhaps get injured in a fight, or allow the union.

Many females allow the union as fighting can easily lead to injury.

Why are humans expected to be so different?

Some human males simply take what they want, as if they were still on the savannah. And some females recognise the futility of fighting back.

WTF have i just read???

jimgoose · 23-11-2016 12:05PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

...Some human males simply take what they want, as if they were still on the savannah. And some females recognise the futility of fighting back.

Some of us recognised the futility of being on the Savannah a good while back, while a small minority of us still fling their own dung at tourists, it would seem. :pac:

kunst nugget · 23-11-2016 12:06PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

WTF have i just read???

You've just read some gutter trolling that needs to be completely ignored.

retro:electro · 23-11-2016 12:06PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

There is no consent in the animal kingdom. None.

Humans are the only animal who consent.

There are forms of consent within the animal kingdom.

Females can attempt to frustrate the union, by fighting, or moving away. We see it all the time in the nature programs. That could be considered as a lack of consent.

But the males are often bigger and stronger and they don't always take no for an answer.

So the female has a choice. Frustrate the union and perhaps get injured in a fight, or allow the union.

Many females allow the union as fighting can easily lead to injury.

Why are humans expected to be so different?

Some human males simply take what they want, as if they were still on the savannah. And some females recognise the futility of fighting back.

You heard it here ladies and gents. Sure you may as well just allow yourself to be raped, wouldn't want to upset the union now would we.

jimgoose · 23-11-2016 12:07PM

anna080 wrote: »

You heard it here ladies and gents. Sure you may as well just allow yourself to be raped, wouldn't want to upset the union now would we.

Is it SIPTU he's on about, or what the actual?? :pac:

me_right_one · 23-11-2016 12:26PM

Ah he worded it badly, but I take his point - which is, we humans are leagues ahead of animals because we have the concept of "consent", whereas animals dont.

True, but d'awh! Of course humans are more advanced than animals.

humanji · 23-11-2016 12:37PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Ah he worded it badly, but I take his point - which is, we humans are leagues ahead of animals because we have the concept of "consent", whereas animals dont.

True, but d'awh! Of course humans are more advanced than animals.

Actually, many animals have consent. Many species have males jumping through hoops for the right to mate. And if they don't impress, they get nothing.

Muhammed_1 · 23-11-2016 12:40PM

There's nothing untrue in my post.

The hysterical reaction is somewhat amusing, although I am not a troll and I didn't intend for this reaction, or expect it.

I thought I was just giving some dry facts which would be largely ignored.

There is no consent in the animal kingdom, that's true. And some humans are little better than animals.

Not everyone is a modern progressive who wants to follow all of the modern rules.

ohnonotgmail · 23-11-2016 12:43PM

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

There's nothing untrue in my post.

The hysterical reaction is somewhat amusing, although I am not a troll and I didn't intend for this reaction, or expect it.

I thought I was just giving some dry facts which would be largely ignored.

There is no consent in the animal kingdom, that's true. And some humans are little better than animals.

it isnt true.

Muhammed_1 wrote: »

Not everyone is a modern progressive who wants to follow all of the modern rules.

So the definition of a modern progressive is somebody who doesnt believe in raping women?

homerjay2005 · 23-11-2016 12:47PM

Emmeline Whining Cork wrote: »

All people like her do is create divisions and hatred between us.

this is something that very few people actually realise.

i have a mam, a sister, a niece, a wife, a god daughter and i can certainly say, she doesn't represent how they view men and above all else, themselves.

Muhammed_1 · 23-11-2016 12:56PM

What I mean is, violence still exists in our society.

We may have become more civilised but we haven't completely left our animal nature behind.

We have no ability to end drug use or pleasure seeking, or violence, or rape I'd suggest.

I think it's about 50-50 as to whether or not we humans destroy ourselves before 2100.

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments