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

NI24

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Like, I'll admit that Milo Yiannopoulos is hardly anyone to cite as anything, but one of the things that was thrown at him was that 'he hates women' cos he calls feminism 'cancer'. 'I love women, I just hate feminism because it prevents them from being as great as they can be' was his response..

Who cares what his excuse is? Anyone familiar with Milo's work knows the man hates women. Although, I have a theory that he's a plant by feminists to make anti-feminists look nuts.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

But most of our moms were not crazy 'men are responsible for everything wrong in the world' feminists. My nan lived to be 100 years old, and she did it without complaining about society-instead, she got on with the job that is life.

Listen, if some women were happy not having the vote or a lower starting wage or being (legally) harassed at work or being (legally) beaten or raped by their husbands then fine. But if you think she's a role model to intelligent people, think again.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

And she did it with a love of life, not crying 'victim' every five minutes.

Unlike modern white conservative men, who can't stop complaining.

Can't get a job? Whine and blame the immigrants.

Can't get a date? Whine and blame the feminists.

Can't make friends/money? Whine and blame the blacks/hispanics/Jews/refugees/any group that isn't white Christian. Blame the feminist immigrant. Or immigrant feminist. Any group suffices.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There was no fighting an 'imaginary' enemy, which is what the partriarchy is.

That "imaginary" enemy of which you speak is a set of laws, customs, and norms that has shaped society since the dawn of man. It may not be tangible, but it is most certainly real.

Sweetemotion

NI24 wrote: »

Who cares what his excuse is? Anyone familiar with Milo's work knows the man hates women. Although, I have a theory that he's a plant by feminists to make anti-feminists look nuts.

Listen, if some women were happy not having the vote or a lower starting wage or being (legally) harassed at work or being (legally) beaten or raped by their husbands then fine. But if you think she's a role model to intelligent people, think again.

Unlike modern white conservative men, who can't stop complaining.

Can't get a job? Whine and blame the immigrants.

Can't get a date? Whine and blame the feminists.

Can't make friends/money? Whine and blame the blacks/hispanics/Jews/refugees/any group that isn't white Christian. Blame the feminist immigrant. Or immigrant feminist. Any group suffices.

That "imaginary" enemy of which you speak is a set of laws, customs, and norms that has shaped society since the dawn of man. It may not be tangible, but it is most certainly real.

No it is not. That imaginary enemy which you speak off, is a delusional disorder.

I'd get that checked out. If I was you.

RabbleRouser2k

NI24 wrote: »

Who cares what his excuse is? Anyone familiar with Milo's work knows the man hates women. Although, I have a theory that he's a plant by feminists to make anti-feminists look nuts.

Listen, if some women were happy not having the vote or a lower starting wage or being (legally) harassed at work or being (legally) beaten or raped by their husbands then fine. But if you think she's a role model to intelligent people, think again.

Unlike modern white conservative men, who can't stop complaining.

Can't get a job? Whine and blame the immigrants.

Can't get a date? Whine and blame the feminists.

Can't make friends/money? Whine and blame the blacks/hispanics/Jews/refugees/any group that isn't white Christian. Blame the feminist immigrant. Or immigrant feminist. Any group suffices.

That "imaginary" enemy of which you speak is a set of laws, customs, and norms that has shaped society since the dawn of man. It may not be tangible, but it is most certainly real.

Whoa-who brought up marital rape? That's a stretch that even I can't make work.

It's still imaginary-the laws? Outside of terminating a pregnancy, most laws apply to men and women, tho some benefit women far more - (mother is more likely to get the kids in a divorce, as well as the house, property, etc-maternity leave is commonplace, but paternity leave is rare).

And then if one says 'it's real' - you have to wonder why those rules tend to change and shift from country to country. And why certain countries place far more importance on women than others.
Laws and rules are followed, the patriarchy is a myth.

hatrickpatrick

Widdershins wrote: »

There's always been censorship on family values/morality grounds. Nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with it? That's your opinion, but in my opinion it's one of the most insidious and f*cked up things in society.

hatrickpatrick

NI24 wrote: »

You've been railing against "SJWs" (translation: anyone you disagree with)

An SJW is very specifically somebody who believes that undesirable opinions should be denied a platform, and that people who express undesirable opinions should be harassed even outside of the platform where the opinion was expressed (for instance, contacting somebody's work and trying to get them fired because they tweeted something you perceive to be racist).

That's not "anyone I disagree with", it's very specifically the regressive left. People who want to limit freedom of expression through mob bullying. The equivalent on the right is the alt-right.

you're going to claim you've been intimidated?

I used to be. I'm still very hesitant to rail against SJWs with my real name attached, but I'm working on getting over that.

Since when is it not ok for a white guy to wear dreads or sing hip hop? I mean, that guy may be called a poser and he is, but rarely would he be considered racist.

In fact, the most liberal, hippy, granola eating birkenstockers wear dreads. Definitely not what anyone would call a racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_appropriation

http://thetab.com/2016/04/05/isnt-ok-white-people-dreadlocks-83996

http://everydayfeminism.com/2015/07/white-people-black-hairstyles/

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/31/living/white-dreadlocks-cultural-appropriation-feat/

Want any more?

Of course it's ok, objectively. My point is that the regressive left wants to make it not ok, and I have a problem with that.

You see, hatrickpatrick, the central problem to your arguments (and the arguments of those similar to you) is that it's never based in reality. You're not sure you could say that to a group of liberal activists because all your discussions take place in your imagination or online. Stop with the what if and what might possibly, perhaps, could happen scenarios and you'll realize that your theories crumble.

What exactly are you saying? Are you denying that there is a large faction on the left which wants to impose rules and regulations regarding what is and is not ok to express? Are you denying that colleges have seen campaigns for their campus to ban the playing of certain songs with offensive lyrics? Are you denying the existence of movements to ban Donald Trump from entering the UK based on the opinions he has expressed? Are you denying that it's impossible these days to be openly anti-immigration without being accused of racism or xenophobia? I could go on, but the regressive left, whatever term you want to use to describe it, is a very real movement and in my view is an insult to the word "liberal" - they are literally the polar opposite of liberal.

Wibbs

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Like, I'll admit that Milo Yiannopoulos is hardly anyone to cite as anything,

You could have trailed off there TBH. The guy's an atomic powered professional troll that earns a nice cynical crust riling up both cross eyed "conservatives" and hysterical "progressives". His attitude to women seems to be play acting and playing up the stereotypical gay man's perceived attitude to women. Because he's a professional troll his real attitudes are well under cover.

I think we all grew up with women (most of us had moms, tho I know there are single dad's out there who look after their kids on their own). But most of our moms were not crazy 'men are responsible for everything wrong in the world' feminists.

Not being American I didn't have a "mom", but your milage may vary. As for the rest of the "ahhh the olde days" stuff? If you're not approaching pensionable age I'd ease off the nostalgia for a past you didn't live and are only getting the edited highlights of. Was it as bad as some who today blame the church for everything? Nope, but a golden age it was not.

More on the This is Not America© theme...

NI24 wrote: »

Listen, if some women were happy not having the vote

In Ireland when did the common man get the vote? That's right. At the same time women did. Fancy that.

or a lower starting wage or being (legally) harassed at work or being (legally) beaten or raped by their husbands then fine.

Hmmm, I don't recall wife beating being legally mandated in Ireland. Hell you make it or want to make it sound compulsory.

Unlike modern white conservative men, who can't stop complaining.

Can't get a job? Whine and blame the immigrants.

Can't get a date? Whine and blame the feminists.

Can't make friends/money? Whine and blame the blacks/hispanics/Jews/refugees/any group that isn't white Christian.

Again This is Not America© We don't have "hispanics" for a start. A few Spaniards knocking about alright which I have found can confuse Yanks… "Blacks"? Not too many really. Jews? Tiny numbers. Oh and Christianity, at least our form of it is roundly vilified by the majority of Irish people.

Again This is Not America© and TBH I've a pain in my ring piece with the wholesale importation of too damned much of the dafter ends of that all too broken society. The gender war bullshít on both sides that Milo and other third rate hacks including our own O'Neill and Mullaly peddle is almost entirely American in origin, as is the "red pill" or any eejit using the terms "cuck" or "SJW" or "patriarchy" or "rape culture". It sounds retarded at source but utterly cretinous and cringeworthy traveling on the back of an Irish accent and from a person who has grown up here in Ireland in a very different society.

RabbleRouser2k

Oh completely, in the majority of the western world, women have equal or better rights than men.

Wibbs

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Oh completely, in the majority of the western world, women have equal or better rights than men.

Pretty much. One might argue the rights angle depending on viewpoint, but only a fool could argue the fact that in the West women have far more social protection than men. They have more safety nets and society official and unofficial has more protections in place for women. Never mind general sympathy towards women as a group.

hatrickpatrick

Wibbs wrote: »

Never mind general sympathy towards women as a group.

I've been giving some thought lately to doing an article on what I've come to regard as "The Empathy Gap". Even a lot of feminists admit that this exists, although they (shock, horror) claim that men are entirely responsible for it and that women in no way help to perpetuate the idea that men are less deserving of empathy. :rolleyes:

RabbleRouser2k

And the weird thing is that they fail to acknowledge that often the biggest critics of women, are women. From a young age, walk into any shop, and hear the young girls looking through the fashion mags talking about how 'that's totally not her colour, I'd be embarassed for her etc'. Or as Fiona Looney noted, when she was sexually assaulted, it was women who were the biggest critics-notably the 'what did you expect dressed like that?'.
It was tragic, tbh, to hear that-really, for two reasons, one, the obvious 'what was she wearing?' excuse for the rape, and two, that people had such a low standard of men that they believed 'how a woman dresses' means they will lose all control and thus become a raping, feral beast.

Yeah, it's shocking and horrible viewpoint tbh-for both genders.

deaddonkey15

NI24 wrote: »

Unlike modern white conservative men, who can't stop complaining.

Can't get a job? Whine and blame the immigrants.

Can't get a date? Whine and blame the feminists.

Can't make friends/money? Whine and blame the blacks/hispanics/Jews/refugees/any group that isn't white Christian. Blame the feminist immigrant. Or immigrant feminist. Any group suffices.

Any evidence for this, or evidence that it is exclusive to white men?

Widdershins

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it? That's your opinion, but in my opinion it's one of the most insidious and f*cked up things in society.

I think the same about your way of looking at society.

py2006

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Any evidence for this, or evidence that it is exclusive to white men?

Am I right in saying that the looney feminists of late have filtered their misandry to white men in particular?

Sonics2k

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Any evidence for this, or evidence that it is exclusive to white men?

r/the_donald
r/niceguys

Let's be honest here. People on both sides are batshít crazy and as bad as eachother.

hatrickpatrick

Widdershins wrote: »

I think the same about your way of looking at society.

That's fair enough too! Of course, I'd be interested to know why. But the point here is, neither of us is asking Boards moderation to ban the other because we've been offended by the other's posts, or arranging hundreds of harassing emails and phone calls to our bosses to demand that we lose our jobs, etc. The alt-right and SJW-left, of which many feminists are now a part, do engage in such tactics.

hatrickpatrick

py2006 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that the looney feminists of late have filtered their misandry to white men in particular?

There was a bit of infighting around this a while back, in which some SJWs argued that being non-white couldn't balance the inherent privilege of being male and therefore that non-white males were fair game for abuse, while others felt that colour / ethnicity was more important than gender in determining privilege and therefore that non-white guys should get some slack. The latter faction seems to have won that particular argument, probably aided by the mainstream media's adoption of the term "angry white males" to slur Donald Trump supporters without actually engaging with their points of view, I'd imagine that the former faction probably decided it was best to use the tailwind of this temporary media support rather than arguing over it. But the usual SJW haunts over on Reddit did have arguments about it earlier in 2015, before Trump became more than just a joke candidate.

hatrickpatrick

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

And the weird thing is that they fail to acknowledge that often the biggest critics of women, are women.

They refer to this as "internalised misogyny" and blame - you guessed it - men for socially conditioning women to think this way.

But lord forbid anyone suggest that women, particularly some female teachers, might be responsible for instilling a similar lack of self-confidence in boys from an early age by talking dismissively about them compared with their "more mature and better behaved" female peers...

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

More on the This is Not America© theme...

Afookin men

You hear young gosoons from carlow or somewhere getting out onto the internet and spouting about "progressives" and "liberals" like they were raised in the bible belt or chung wans waffling on about white privilege.

Nevermind your privilege, check your ****ing location. Brainless dolts

The Rape of Lucretia

Bambi wrote: »

Afookin men

You hear young gosoons from carlow or somewhere getting out onto the internet and spouting about "progressives" and "liberals" like they were raised in the bible belt or chung wans waffling on about white privilege.

What are they? Young Chinese girls living in Carlow ?

Widdershins

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's fair enough too! Of course, I'd be interested to know why. But the point here is, neither of us is asking Boards moderation to ban the other because we've been offended by the other's posts, or arranging hundreds of harassing emails and phone calls to our bosses to demand that we lose our jobs, etc. The alt-right and SJW-left, of which many feminists are now a part, do engage in such tactics.

It's only the part about social codes based on morality that I disagree wtih as far as your posts go.

The SJW antics are totally out of keeping with any of that, imo. I am completely opposed to that kind of crazy and self serving censorship.

mzungu

py2006 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that the looney feminists of late have filtered their misandry to white men in particular?

In the aftermath of the Trump victory the "uneducated white women" of the US became a target. For a bunch that go on about sexism and misogyny that women face, they seem to be able to dish it out in spades when things don't go their way.

deaddonkey15

Sonics2k wrote: »

r/the_donald
r/niceguys

Let's be honest here. People on both sides are batshít crazy and as bad as eachother.

Reddit, great.

darkdubh

NI24 wrote: »

Who cares what his excuse is? Anyone familiar with Milo's work knows the man hates women. Although, I have a theory that he's a plant by feminists to make anti-feminists look nuts.

Listen, if some women were happy not having the vote or a lower starting wage or being (legally) harassed at work or being (legally) beaten or raped by their husbands then fine. But if you think she's a role model to intelligent people, think again.

Unlike modern white conservative men, who can't stop complaining.

Can't get a job? Whine and blame the immigrants.

Can't get a date? Whine and blame the feminists.

Can't make friends/money? Whine and blame the blacks/hispanics/Jews/refugees/any group that isn't white Christian. Blame the feminist immigrant. Or immigrant feminist. Any group suffices.

That "imaginary" enemy of which you speak is a set of laws, customs, and norms that has shaped society since the dawn of man. It may not be tangible, but it is most certainly real.

Last time I looked Jews were pretty thin on the ground in this country. As are "hispanics" which is a purely American expression to describe non white immigrants to The United States from Latin America. Did you by any chance copy and paste this from something you saw online?

Sonics2k

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Reddit, great.

Like the site or not, it has an absolutely massive user base and does is evidence of people like this.

deaddonkey15

Sonics2k wrote: »

Like the site or not, it has an absolutely massive user base and does is evidence of people like this.

Not to me. Anonymous folk whining on reddit is not the same as a paid national platform that LON enjoys.

hatrickpatrick

Widdershins wrote: »

It's only the part about social codes based on morality that I disagree wtih as far as your posts go.

Elaborate? What specifically do you disagree with?

The SJW antics are totally out of keeping with any of that, imo. I am completely opposed to that kind of crazy and self serving censorship.

I am personally opposed to all ideological censorship. In a world of objectivity and moral relativism, it is impossible to suggest that one form of censorship is ok while another is not - it's the act of censoring people's opinions in and of itself which is morally wrong.

me_right_one

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The common term is SJW, for Social Justice Warrior.... Too many of us, myself included up until recently, have been too intimidated by the SJW fringe and its threats of branding any critics as racist, sexist, homophobic etc to properly call them out on their bullsh!t and make it quite clear that they have no place and are not welcome in any left leaning ideology. They belong with those who would impose cultural censorship on religious or family values grounds - what they are pedalling is absolutely no different.

But certain things SHOULD be censored based on family value grounds. Nothing wrong with that.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nothing wrong with it? That's your opinion, but in my opinion it's one of the most insidious and f*cked up things in society.

I disagree.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Elaborate? What specifically do you disagree with?

I am personally opposed to all ideological censorship. In a world of objectivity and moral relativism, it is impossible to suggest that one form of censorship is ok while another is not - it's the act of censoring people's opinions in and of itself which is morally wrong.

To be honest HP, I think its YOU who needs to elaborate. On one hand, you say you hate censorship - while at the same time, regarding some peoples views you say "they have no place in any left ideology". Thats the very definition of censorship! So which is it?

At the same time, you whinge about SJW's, whinging about non-issues! I think you left the iron on too long there.

Then you go on to champion "moral relativism" - you do realise that is what these "cultural wars" bullsh1t is all about? As in, its ok for the KKK to hate black people because it has always been their culture? Or the Israeli army to mass murder the Palestinians after what the Nazi's did to the Jews? Eh, no.

And most importantly, you state that censoring things based on family values, such as not allowing minors to watch porn, for example, is:

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

one of the most insidious and f*cked up things in society

I just dont know! I consider myself a centerist, I like some right wing ideas, some left wing ones, some authoritarian ones, and some liberal ones. Context is the key, and common sense is the filter. And to me as a centerist, you sound exactly like the SJW's you are berating.

It is YOU who has some explaining to do!

RabbleRouser2k

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They refer to this as "internalised misogyny" and blame - you guessed it - men for socially conditioning women to think this way.

But lord forbid anyone suggest that women, particularly some female teachers, might be responsible for instilling a similar lack of self-confidence in boys from an early age by talking dismissively about them compared with their "more mature and better behaved" female peers...

So now we possess the power of mind control-amazing, I never knew I was a mutant....:rolleyes:

Yeah, I heard people who were claiming that 'women voted for Trump cos of internalised misogyny' or 'internalised sexism' never mind that Hillary was one of the worst candidates the dems ever put forward. When John KErry had more people working on the campaign trail for him than Hilary, you knew they had made the wrong choice with not going with Bernie. So much so, they tried to denounce them as 'Bernie-bros' despite one of the more outspoken voices for Bernie, and against Hilary, being Susan Sarandon. A woman who pretty much makes up her own mind on everything.

Oh yeah, and those same teachers who are 'praising' the 'mature young girls' don't realise they are the ones sneaking out for a fag, in order to whine and moan about that said same teacher-dear jesus, the crap said about the fit young teacher, good looking teacher in her 'rough estimate' 40s when I was in school and college...by girls...jesus. I wouldn't think of saying that about anyone. But then again, I heard a similar thing from a minority of guys too-jerks are jerks, but girls seemed to be way worse-it's why Mean Girls remains so popular-we KNOW these girls. They're every where.

RabbleRouser2k

py2006 wrote: »

Am I right in saying that the looney feminists of late have filtered their misandry to white men in particular?

When I was in college, well, one of the colleges (didn't stay in that one) one of the lecturers we had taught on stuff like literature, philosophy, and how we interact with media, and media interacts with us. Total male feminist, completely absorbed in it. Wasn't able to stay faithful to his girlfriend, who also worked in the college, and had one relationship with a female student (he had tenure, the worst that happened was he got a really nasty call from said students parents).
Anyway, he used to lecture on about women's rights and fertility.I remember there was a case ongoing at the time regarding ownership of embryos-it was in the news, how one woman had been left unable to conceive due to removal of an ovarian cyst and ovary, and infection in the other ovary leaving her with half an ovary-and she and her partner were going through IVF, then broke up, but the embryos were left in limbo, as he didn't want to be a dad after that. Well, she still wanted to be a mum, tried to go to court to get ownership of them, and lost. I remember saying to him 'if you support a womans right to choose, then if the embryos are outside the body, and the guy doesn't wanna be a dad, then surely he deserves that choice too?'. He was all like 'it's women's fertility, they should control it'. He claimed to hate children, and did not want to be a dad (adored his niece tho).

Last I heard, his girlfriend had gotten pregnant with his kid...same girlfriend he cheated on too. Poor guy seemed to not believe in his convictions. Sad really. Feminism messed him up.

me_right_one

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

...but the embryos were left in limbo, as he didn't want to be a dad after that. Well, she still wanted to be a mum, tried to go to court to get ownership of them, and lost. I remember saying to him 'if you support a womans right to choose, then if the embryos are outside the body, and the guy doesn't wanna be a dad, then surely he deserves that choice too?'. He was all like 'it's women's fertility, they should control it'. He claimed to hate children, and did not want to be a dad.

Ah fertility, fertility. It takes two fertile people to tango, but one gets all the rights. Why aren't LON and the other "loony" feminists tackling THAT gender inequality?