Louise O Neill on rape culture.

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.

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.

Well, to her it's not misdirected as she blames patriarchal society for her attack. She has said as much a few times now. So anything she can do to paint women as being oppressed, judged and used by privileged white men, the better, in her eyes. She's obsessed with seeing women as victims of patriarchal society. Even in this recent article she is going on about dinner parties with other female authors and how they discuss how they are conflated with the characters in their books more than men are. I mean, is there any aspect of life that she doesn't see women as being mistreated. It's so bloody boring and that fact that there is such a huge appetite for that kind of self indulgent nonsense makes so annoying. If young girls were rolling their eyes at her in vast numbers, I wouldn't mind so much, but they're parroting her nonsense all the damn time. Hell, she even called for it recently enough when she suggested that girls create their little "covens" online to express their views and bolster one another.

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.

Mine neither. Wrote the following in tGC a while back:

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.

So I totally agree with you: Whenever I hear feminists going on that supportive stuff, I just roll my eyes as it's just not true and I hear far more men speaking positively about women that I do women speaking positively about other women. It's like they are trying to create this illusion and false narrative than women all adore one another and if it wasn't for men, everyone would get along just great. When the truth is that as soon as young girls start to notice that boys want them a little more than they perhaps they want them (physically speaking) girls start to condemn any of their friends who are "easy" as it takes away some of their power. I think it's the same with adult women too. Men get accused of slut shaming women and that they are afraid of women expressing their sexuality, but yet from the times boys knee high to a grasshoppers they are doing everything they possibly can to try and get girls to express their sexuality.

Louise said in reaction to 'Slane girl' - "Why was there no 'Slane boys'?" - implying that society wants to shame young girls for being sexual, but not boys, as we have more regard for them or something. But that is such illogical nonsense. The reason there wasn't a 'Slane Boys' headline was because it wouldn't be news to anyone that young lads either wanted to do that nor would do that. We all know that there is no shortage of boys that would be up for such behaviour, should the opportunity arise (excuse the pun). It was 'Slane Girl' because it's out of the norm for them to be overtly sexual. Again, not boys fault, as they are constantly sending the signals that they want girls to behave that way. Music festivals would be one large orgy if all the girls that showed up were willing to be as overtly sexual as boys. Hence 'Slane Girl!'. Not patriarchal oppression.

As for her sexual assault, that she is now whining about being asked about, while of course suggesting that men wouldn't be (oh please) it is very much what 'Asking For It' is loosely based upon. In the same way that 'Only Ever Yours' was loosely the basis for her experiences with anorexia and what she feels caused it (and causes it in general). From her interviews it seemed she was happy to cite her real life experiences to sell her books and so it's a bit rich to be acted put upon now. With specific regards to 'Asking for It' and journalists asking her for more details about that night perhaps they are asking because they are important. After all, it is Louise who is telling us all that we need to have a conversation about consent but yet when asked to extrapolate on her 'inability to say no' - she remains quiet. The main character in her book says: "I didn't say no, but I didn't say yes either". Seems to me Louise is not doing much to help define sexual consent at all.

Do we even know that there is a large group of rapists in Ireland who actually were of the misguided belief that the woman they raped was actually consenting? I mean, where is the evidence that this conversation is so needed in Irish society that Louise O'Neill can actually make a living of just talking about it. I see no evidence of it at all. The only Irish case Louise cited that came anywhere close is the quite frankly bizarre case of the Norwegian guy who raped his Dublin girlfriend in her sleep and who she continued to sleep with after his admission. That's it though. You would think that for this much noise to be made about us needing a urgent conversation regarding sexual consent, which of course brings with it the implication that to do so would lower the instances of rape in Ireland, more would have had to have been included in her docu to back up this contention... but no. Seems like she has conflated some apparent ambiguity about sexual consent, along with the occurrences of rape, but nobody has really challenged her on this. Instead we just give her a TV show, movie and book deals and stuff her bank account with vast amounts of readies. Nice work if you can get it.

py2006 wrote: »

A little update from our 'oppressed' friend who lacks the 'privilege' that men have...

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/807576737240481792

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.

She can speak out of both sides of her mouth:( . She has referred to her own privilege in the past, as a white woman.

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.

Yes it was some inane drivel like that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Sonics2k wrote: »

You people are obsessed with this woman.

Far from it. I find her deathly boring and frequently forget this thread was originally about her. It's the new flavour of feminism she represents that people want to talk about.

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.

The post was, and still is, lost on me. Why do you care that she posts about a pair of earrings? What bearing does it have on her views on feminism? It was lost on me. It was not attacking anything, it was me saying that post was lost on me.

The do it yourself if you want it done right was just that. Don't focus so much on one woman doing it incorrectly, just continue to do it right yourself. Be the change you want to see in the world and all that jazz. Was a simple comment not an attack.

I wasn't defending her per se, I was pointing out that she can't win with some people, it's like people just want to find issues all the time. I don't agree with her at all, I don't like the girl or hate her, I don't agree with her views on things, I just don't understand why people discuss how she does and doesnt do certain things but continue to look at her twitter and expect her to do/say the right things. She's not going to suddenly become the voice of reason.