ivytwine wrote: » I have only known of one physically abusive relationship personally and that was male on female. I can give you tons of examples of emotionally abusive relationships in my circle. And a significant proportion were female on male.
Mortpourvelo wrote: » The whole Fifty Shades.. nonsense passed me by completely, but a mate's sister (who seemed normal up till that time) said "as a woman you are honour bound to read it."
hatrickpatrick wrote: » I've been in one (although I hesitate to even call it a 'relationship' since it only existed at all under threat of blackmail and subsequently self-harm if I didn't play along) and in fact the event in my own life which galvanised me to becoming outspoken on issues of sexism against men was the fact that this was a teenage relationship and at the exact same time as the UK government ran an ad warning teenagers about emotionally abusive relationships - every one of which featured a boy subjecting a girl to identical bullsh!t to what I was being subjected to. This is why I find it so enraging that feminists still insist that abusive relationships are a gender biased issue. If even one man suffers in that way anywhere in the world, the term "violence against women" being synonymous with "abusive relationships" is a moral affront. In fact, by the logic of the regressive left, if such men are a minority, that makes them even more deserving of a voice. Oh and you know the real kicker? A guy who behaves that way is just a straight up asshole, whereas the woman who treated me that way was "poor girl, she obviously needs help". It's one or the other, folks. Either emotionally abusive people are assholes or they are unfortunate - changing that label based solely on gender is unimaginably f*cked up.
ivytwine wrote: » I was reading there about Louise O'Neill and I didn't realise she has gone through such a tough time. It explains a lot but I still stand by my assertion that her ire is misdirected and there is other positive action she could take.
One thing that interested me a lot was that she mentions going to an all-girl secondary school and having a crap time there. I did too and I'll be honest, for me, that's the root of my more equal opportunity view of assholes. It can be a really poisonous atmosphere. I cringe when some feminists say women are so supportive of each other. It's not my experience at all.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » My primary school, was like most people's primary schools in Ireland (I think) in that they were all gender segregated. It wasn't overly religious or anything but we were very much taught that we should be respectful anytime we were around girls. Both physically (not be so boisterous) and how we engaged with them (not shout at them or speak vulgarly to them). The girls school was joined to ours though and so we would line up close to one another and meet in the hall ways etc and so all that time, right up to 6th class (so from age 4 to 13ish) that's how it was. Then I went to secondary school. Mixed secondary school, and boy was I (and everyone else I went to school with) in for a surprise. The first week or so everyone was on their best behaviour, but not long after (and for the next five years) I sat in class with (and often next to) girls from hell!!! They would lie about each other, cause fights, spit at one another, pull each others hair, call each other sluts, fart, belch, stink, talk about boyband members (and what they wanted to do to 'em, what they let them do to them) etc, and my school was a decent respectable community college The illusion was over for me, quick time. I always found that lads that went to the Christian Brothers, that had no sisters, always tended to put girls on a pedestal a lot more than those of us that knew different. Sometimes when I look around at society and grown men are overly protective of women or are speaking about them in a way that you'd swear women were angels, I do wonder what, if any, interactions they have had with the opposite sex in their lives, cause it can't have been much.
py2006 wrote: » A little update from our 'oppressed' friend who lacks the 'privilege' that men have...https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/807576737240481792
Widdershins wrote: » She might earn more respect if she did something about her self professed privilege and spoke up for the most underprivileged women in society. Any minute now 'll be reminded that it's not her problem because she lives in Ireland. The irony!
neonsofa wrote: » The post you quoted implied that she views herself as less privileged. Tbh the post itself was lost on me, I don't know what point it was supposed to make.
Connacht2KXX wrote: » Since the whole Trump election, she's sent out some throwaway tweets about her privilege as a white, straight woman and how she feels terrible for the PoC living through Trump's tirade, but her privileged position can't make her empathise properly with them. She clearly read that type of sentiment in some left wing feminist facebook post and copied and pasted it, like she does with all her views.
Widdershins wrote: » Yes it was some inane drivel like that.
neonsofa wrote: » So you say you want her to use her privelidge or whatever to speak up on issues affecting the more underprivileged women but then when she does that its apparently not done the right way so you refer to it as drivel. The girl can't win.
me_right_one wrote: » IF... she did it the right way, then yay! The thing is though, she never does.
neonsofa wrote: » So you say you want her to use her privilege or whatever to speak up on issues affecting the more underprivileged women but then when she does that its apparently not done the right way so you refer to it as drivel. The girl can't win.
neonsofa wrote: » Well you know what they say, if you want something done right do it yourself.
neonsofa wrote: » Well you know what they say, if you want something done right do it yourself. Just saw your edit. I know exactly what's been said in the thread, and I think she's an absolute idiot but that wasnt what i was referring to. People are giving out about every little thing she does, and doesn't do. Saying why doesn't she do this or that, and then when she does, giving out that she doesn't seem genuine enough in what she is saying.
neonsofa wrote: » If she's such a bad spokesperson on the issue of rape and other feminist issues then why do posters feel she should be advocating for and speaking up for vulnerable women on other issues. Quite frankly I'd rather she left well enough alone myself.
me_right_one wrote: » I edited the post to make it better - so what? If I was given the chance to champion the underdogs of society in a national newspaper for a wage, I'd absolutely jump at the chance! As it is, I do what I can voluntarily. Eh, we dont! She should be sacked, the girl is not fit to be doing that job. I said it before and I'll say it again, I believe she needs psychiatric help. She has some serious mental health issues. She has my pity.
Widdershins wrote: » What are you talking about? She has never done that to my knowledge. Are you hallucinating Louise O'Neill standing up for underprivileged women? Black women of colour, unnamed, referred to as a group not individuals, and all from varying life situations, are not underprivileged just because DT was elected- LON is presumptuous to say they wouldn't be happy about it, and that they need her sympathy. That is not standing up for underprivileged women, it's being patronising to women she knows nothing about other than skin colour and what president they have. If she did what I said I think she should do-stand up for underprivileged women- then of course she would ''win''. Blithering about Donald Trumps election is NOT standing up for women.
neonsofa wrote: » Why so defensive? I edited my post to add a response to your edit- the edit I had just seen. I wasn't questioning the fact you edited it so you can calm down there.
neonsofa wrote: » The post you quoted implied that she views herself as less privileged.Tbh the post itself was lost on me, I don't know what point it was supposed to make.
neonsofa wrote: » Well you know what they say, if you want something done right do it yourself. Just saw your edit. I know exactly what's been said in the thread.
Sonics2k wrote: » You people are obsessed with this woman.
ivytwine wrote: » I'd give Louise a pass on Newbridge, it's her personal Twitter and she's into fashion. It's not like it's a prohibitively expensive brand either. She doesn't have to be "on" all the time. .
neonsofa wrote: » The tweets I have seen from her in relation to trump were mainly about his degrading comments about women and survivors of sexual assault, not necessarily women of colour. Alot of her comments on the issue seem to have been made with links to specific articles and not throwaway generalisations and assumptions, but her opinion specifically in response to the pieces she has read.
me_right_one wrote: » I'm defensive because you wrote your posts in an attacking manner. I've highlighted the bits in question in bold: Now, maybe I'm picking you up wrong, but all the bold above seems a bit "attackish" to me. If not, fair enough. Anyway, at first you seemed to be defending her, then you called her an idiot. For the record, I dont know the girl personally, so maybe she's an idiot, maybe she's not. I dont know. But her PUBLIC persona is definitely deviating from being mentally sound.
Widdershins wrote: » But I was responding to a comment in which it was the women-or people of colour-that was mentioned in the twitter posts. Seemingly that style of twitter post is classed by you as standing up for underprivileged women outside Ireland.
