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

Ulysses Gaze

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Her friend Elizabeth Wood-Wood lives in the states, she's never met her and probably doesn't know LON from Adam...

Which is why Rogue One is storming the box office, and why Force Awakens was a huge success in 2015, why one of the foremost critics of Ghostbusters were women, and why Ghostbusters is one of 14 box office bombs this year, as put together by the Hollywood reporter.
Cos of men reviewers...yeah, right. Reviews are reviews, and most of the critics point out, about White Girl, that most of the characters aren't well written, or well acted-they needed some amount of development...considering it's allegedly biographical, that's a real laziness or badly written

Her statistics are flawed too-very flawed tbh. As you can see from the RottenTomatoes meter, RT plays loose and fast with the 'fresh' meter. One 'fresh' rating on one movie, will be a 'rotten' rating on another-and it will be the same 2 out of 4 stars.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/men-are-sabotaging-the-online-reviews-of-tv-shows-aimed-at-women/

Overall, from that article, while men may be more savage on something, such as a film or book review, based on a 1-10 score, the genders usually only score a point or two different. So while a woman may give a film a 10, a man might give it a 9-if that is the negative criticism LON is on about-she's being crazy. What she doesn't wanna admit is maybe 'White Girl', as a film is a tad 'sh*t'. Also, film is open to interpretation, her 'identifying' with the character doesn't make it a good film-That is the purpose of film making, to create a person for one to identify with. It's called 'looking for a face like mine'-in regular language.

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/white-girl-2016

On the other hand, the above, woman, critic, points out something interesting-the character she identifies with is male, because, she notes, he's the best actor in the whole film. You believe his story.
Morgan Saylor, the lead actress, and also in Homeland, simply put-cannot act-she does the same 'beats'. Also, the director, plain and simple, just uses Saylor as a template for her, rather than a fully fleshed out character. Her motive is bland, and boring, it doesn't ring true.

So LON can say 'it's men' but when women don't like the movie either-what's the excuse then?

They have been brainwashed and conditioned by the Patriarchy.

Or something like that.

LuckyLloyd

Don't know how to feel about this thread at this stage. On one hand a huge amount of modern 'feminist' nonsense has been thoroughly taken apart and ripped to shreds. But on the other a thread like this provides tons of the negative oxygen that Louise O'Neill's career desperately seeks.

RabbleRouser2k

Well, to be fair, she either will cry oppression, or she'll get material for her next article.

She strikes me as the person who googles herself, tbh.

hatrickpatrick

me_right_one wrote: »

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

Such as? Why should one person's, or one group of peoples' personal values restrict what other people can publish or consume in terms of content?

To be honest HP, I think its YOU who needs to elaborate.

No problem, tell me what to elaborate on and I'll do just that

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?

That is not censorship. I am not saying that those people cannot hold their own opinions or that their opinions are even wrong - merely that the definition of "liberal" is logically opposed to "authoritarian", and so that therefore one cannot simultaneously advocate for restricting personal freedom and claim the label of "liberal".

SJWs are not liberals, but they are co-opting the term. If they are going to do that, then perhaps actual liberals need to splinter and coin an entirely new term to distinguish themselves. But it's pretty clear that there's simply too much fundamental disagreement between liberal leftists and regressive leftists for them to share the same banner without causing confusion and pointless infighting. There has to be a split at some point.

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

I have no problem with SJWs, or indeed anyone, whining about anything. Whining is stating that you don't approve of something. It is not contacting advertising companies and asking them to essentially financially blockade any company which allows content you disagree with (to take one example of regressive left tactics)

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?

There's a fundamental difference between holding an opinion and acting upon it. The former as a victimless action falls under moral relativism. The latter as a definitively NOT victimless action (victim-ful?) does not.

Or the Israeli army to mass murder the Palestinians after what the Nazi's did to the Jews? Eh, no.

.......That is in no way a cultural issue. The term cultural libertarianism vs authoritarianism is restricted to words, not actions.

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

Even though I vehemently disagree with a restriction on minors watching porn, this is actually a separate issue. Restricting content at the audience-end is not censorship. Censorship is saying that it cannot be published at all. An example would be Alan Shatter's work of fiction a few years back - that wasn't simply restricted from minors, that was banned from being published in any manner whatsoever, and that I find utterly insidious. Nobody should have the right to dictate what written works an adult can or cannot consume in the privacy of their home. I specify written because obviously, if you're dealing with something filmed, then there's of course the issue of consent on the part of the actors involved, which includes child porn as minors cannot consent.
But I would go on to say that anything in which all the participants consent and are able to consent, there are no rightful grounds for censorship on the grounds that some people find what has been produced "tasteless" or "sick". Who are they to tell others what they can or cannot publish or watch?

How do you feel, for instance, about the UK's recent ban on the production of BDSM porn, even when it's fully consensual among all of the actors / actresses involved? That, to me, is a perfect example of moralistic censorship, and that's what I'm saying is vile and insidious.

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!

Given that the entire basis of the SJW is ideological policing, whereas I advocate for a complete absence of ideological policing, I honestly can't see how anyone would come to this conclusion. Could you elaborate on this?

me_right_one

Hold on here a minute:

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Even though I vehemently disagree with a restriction on minors watching porn, this is actually a separate issue.

This sentence right here discredits everything else you have said. So, buried in your pile of hair splitting arguements, you "vehemently disagree with a restriction on minors watching porn"?

That statement sums up your ideological position entirely. That is why you are not being taken seriously, and you are seen as just as bad as the SJW's.

Before we go any further, I'll ask you again to clarify this - why do you think its not ok to put restrictions on children watching porn?

hatrickpatrick

me_right_one wrote: »

Hold on here a minute:

This sentence right here discredits everything else you have said. So, buried in your pile of hair splitting arguements, you "vehemently disagree with a restriction on minors watching porn"?

That statement sums up your ideological position entirely. That is why you are not being taken seriously, and you are seen as just as bad as the SJW's.

Before we go any further, I'll ask you again to clarify this - why do you think its not ok to put restrictions on children watching porn?

First of all, I said that this was my personal opinion and not something I am trying to advocate for, so I don't see how it undermines my argument.

Second of all, I would definitely draw a distinction between prepubescent and pubescent minors for the purposes of this conversation.

Thirdly, why should such restrictions exist? Society has hangups around sexuality which I simply don't agree with - I don't agree that it should be taboo in any way. I would not, for example, wait until my children were a particular age before explaining where babies come from using the truth rather than innuendo, if they asked - what exactly is the point? Sex is just sex. The taboo aura humans have put around it is unique in the animal kingdom and in my view does far, far more harm than good to people psychologically.

Finally, I would credit my own discovery of erotica and porn when I was hitting puberty and discovering that I related to sex differently to other lads as having prevented me from spiralling into misery and becoming incredibly repressed. And I've had it said to me by multiple girlfriends that I was one of the most open minded and easy to open up to about 'embarrassing' kinks and fantasies of any guy they'd been with. I would again credit that to my discovery of online erotica communities based around my own kink long before anyone had a chance to try to convince me that certain things can be objectively wrong even if everyone involved consents to them.

Crucial difference between myself and the SJWs - I would not demand that moderators or companies ban people for expressing an opinion diametrically opposed to this one. SJWs do that routinely. Look at their attempts to shut down any conversation around immigration in Europe for example - there's an example of where I, as a liberal, agree with their argument but not method. In other words, I fully believe in multiculturalism like they do. But I fully oppose censoring or banning people for expressing a nationalistic viewpoint, like they do.

Again, this culture war is not about actions but about words, and more specifically, one's freedom to air unpopular opinions.

pumpkin4life

Porn is bad for you in large amounts. It causes ED, depression, lowers drive and ambition, causes neurological damage and increases the probability of sexual deviance. The literature on its effects are becoming more numerous and comprehensive as time goes on.

The idea of showing it to a fùcking kid is just wrong.

hatrickpatrick

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Porn is bad for you in large amounts. It causes ED, depression, lowers drive and ambition, causes neurological damage

Citation? And also, nobody in this thread has specified "large amounts" or otherwise.

increases the probability of sexual deviance.

What the f*ck does "sexual deviance" mean?

The idea of showing it to a fùcking kid is just wrong.

Again, are you including pubescent minors in this, AKA teenagers?

pumpkin4life

Go to yourbrainonporn.com. Good place to start. I'd post some stuff here but I'm not chancing hitting the porn filter at work.

Porn's effect on the brain works in the same way drugs do. Overuse of porn leads to an increased demand for more extreme stimulation, which can go pretty far. People's sexual tastes are surprisingly malleable in relation to a lot of this stuff.

Also when you said minor=I think kids.

Teenagers is at least some bit acceptable.

hatrickpatrick

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Go to yourbrainonporn.com. Good place to start. I'd post some stuff here but I'm not chancing hitting the porn filter at work.

Porn's effect on the brain works in the same way drugs do. Overuse of porn leads to an increased demand for more extreme stimulation, which can go pretty far. People's sexual tastes are surprisingly malleable in relation to a lot of this stuff.

Also when you said minor=I think kids.

Teenagers is at least some bit acceptable.

I'm aware of the aforementioned theory, I still don't see how that justifies censorship. Exposure to plenty of things influences people's tastes - should minors be prevented from listening to music because it might influence what kind of music they enjoy later in life...?

py2006

Music and porn huh?

Lets get back to the wonder that is Louise

The Rape of Lucretia

darkdubh wrote: »

Surprise surprise Louise O Neill is raving about it. Didn't she say the same about Can't Cope Won't Cope? If it stars one of her buddies and the main character has a vagina then it's thumbs up.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/815685267336134656

Model professional woman, done wrong by an evil male, shows gumption, superiority of wit and resourcefulness compared to the other males around her (even the law), and rises above it all to self actualisation success and the realisation that she is better alone than succumbing to the control and oppression of a male dominated family business.

Who wouldnt break their social media cover to endorse that ?

hatrickpatrick

py2006 wrote: »

Music and porn huh?

Well if you combine the two you can get some beautiful results

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQqNGhfMjU

Lets get back to the wonder that is Louise

Indeed, this moralistic censorship thing is a tangent and deserves a separate thread at this stage.

I don't think one can deny however that feminism has a decidedly cultural authoritarian bent to it at the present time, and that this is distinct from mainstream feminism even five, six years ago.

RabbleRouser2k

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Model professional woman, done wrong by an evil male, shows gumption, superiority of wit and resourcefulness compared to the other males around her (even the law), and rises above it all to self actualisation success and the realisation that she is better alone than succumbing to the control and oppression of a male dominated family business.

Who wouldnt break their social media cover to endorse that ?

So it's Ally McBeal then...? But without the dancing baby?

mzungu

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

So it's Ally McBeal then...? But without the dancing baby?

Indeed, although minus the dancing baby would also essentially make it Bridget Jones. At the time Ally McBeal (late 90s) was more or less a transatlantic version of the Bridget Jones books for the yanks. Until they realised they could sell Bridget Jones in the states, but only by having an American actress in the titular role. That's showbiz!

Outlaw Pete

This is excellent and from someone who has been raped themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3_ty5jKkX0

py2006

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This is excellent and from someone who has been raped themselves.

Every feminist today needs to see that.

hatrickpatrick

The absolute sh!t storm over the Irish Times article explaining the Alt-Right in an objective (IE, not bashing or promoting) manner is a perfect example of the sort of no-platforming quasi-censorship advocated by SJWs.

The article in question: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-alt-right-movement-everything-you-need-to-know-1.2924658

Una Mullally going absolutely ballistic over the fact that somebody with an offensive (to her) opinion was allowed to speak in a newspaper: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-why-the-irish-times-should-not-have-published-nicholas-pell-1.2926726

And finally, a bit of common sense from an author who talks about how dangerous it is to give any movement the power to say that certain other ideologies should not be allowed a voice: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/angela-nagle-what-the-alt-right-is-really-all-about-1.2926929

The online culture wars of recent years have become ugly beyond anything I could have ever imagined. The seemingly sociopathic levels of amoral cruelty found in comment threads wherever Pepe memes lurk suggests an unpleasant answer to the question posed long ago by Plato’s Ring of Gyges – would we behave morally if we could be invisible and thus consequence free?

And this doesn’t apply exclusively to the Alt-right. A new generation of liberal left-identitarians display chilling levels of pack pleasure when conducting career-ending, life-destroying hate campaigns against people for minor infringements against the liberal moral code such as off-colour jokes. Some examples were chronicled in Jon Ronson’s So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. I think what has led so many young white men in the US in particular to openly flirt with the Alt-right online is a sense that one may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. Why grovel when you can join an anonymous army of trolls to fight back with pure offensiveness. This is what the Alt-right offers.

But like the US socialist writer Shuja Haider recently argued: “It should go without saying that left-liberal identity politics and Alt-right white nationalism are not comparable. The problem is that they are compatible.” Tumblr needs 4chan just as neo-masculinist misogynists need a perpetual supply of listicles about man-splaining, and the Alt-right needs finger wagging “Dear white people” liberal commentary to denigrate ordinary white people at every opportunity. None of them would make sense without the other. While Spencer’s plans are unlikely to catch on any time soon, the emergence of the Alt-right should warn us of a now imminent nightmare vision of what the coming years might hold – a public arena emptied of any civility, universalist ideas or openly competing political visions beyond a zero-sum tribal antagonism of identity groups, in which the boundaries of acceptable thought will shrink further while the purged will amass in the fetid forums of the Alt-right.

RabbleRouser2k

Why do I get the feeling that if Martin Luther King were alive and well today, Una would be condemning him for 'promoting a dangerous ideology'?

Seriously, she is just a loon.

IF people believe a movement is bat crap insane, allow them to observe a movement as bat crap insane.

Her mentioning 'that said article was tweeted by a known racist'...well, yeah, nobody can control what happens to something once they write it. I got retweeted by a few folks on twitter that I'm none too fond of- but I can't control what they tweet.
I imagine that that racist also tweeted an image of a kitten too-but should we condemn kitten memes so vehemently?
(With Una, we may).

She really is getting no love on the Irish Times website at all-most are plainly disagreeing with her.

givyjoe

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Why do I get the feeling that if Martin Luther King were alive and well today, Una would be condemning him for 'promoting a dangerous ideology'?

She really is getting no love on the Irish Times website at all-most are plainly disagreeing with her.

They'll probably be blocked and/or torn apart in a follow up article for doing so.

DEFTLEFTHAND

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Why do I get the feeling that if Martin Luther King were alive and well today, Una would be condemning him for 'promoting a dangerous ideology'?

Seriously, she is just a loon.

IF people believe a movement is bat crap insane, allow them to observe a movement as bat crap insane.

Her mentioning 'that said article was tweeted by a known racist'...well, yeah, nobody can control what happens to something once they write it. I got retweeted by a few folks on twitter that I'm none too fond of- but I can't control what they tweet.
I imagine that that racist also tweeted an image of a kitten too-but should we condemn kitten memes so vehemently?
(With Una, we may).

She really is getting no love on the Irish Times website at all-most are plainly disagreeing with her.

She wouldn't have condemned King. Race trumps everything with people like her.

Widdershins

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The absolute sh!t storm over the Irish Times article explaining the Alt-Right in an objective (IE, not bashing or promoting) manner is a perfect example of the sort of no-platforming quasi-censorship advocated by SJWs.

The article in question: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-alt-right-movement-everything-you-need-to-know-1.2924658

Una Mullally going absolutely ballistic over the fact that somebody with an offensive (to her) opinion was allowed to speak in a newspaper: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-why-the-irish-times-should-not-have-published-nicholas-pell-1.2926726

And finally, a bit of common sense from an author who talks about how dangerous it is to give any movement the power to say that certain other ideologies should not be allowed a voice: http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/angela-nagle-what-the-alt-right-is-really-all-about-1.2926929

The hypocrisy of Una DooLally wanting her own fascist left wing opinions to have ''an uncontested platform'' and claiming that's what the Irish Times have given the Alt Right.

Also, what is she hammering on about Muslims and Jews in post-election America, for? I thought many high profile cases of discrimination and race based crime attributed to Trump's win, have turned out to be faked?

Comments on Una's article are great.

mzungu

Widdershins wrote: »

The hypocrisy of Una DooLally wanting her own fascist left wing opinions to have ''an uncontested platform'' and claiming that's what the Irish Times have given the Alt Right.

When it comes to the political spectrum, this worldview is not too dissimilar to that of this Spencer loon from the alt-right. In fact, a lot of these "progressives" would be closer to the alt-right ideologically than the vast majority of the people in this country. Both are fixated on skin colour, gender supremacy, victim complexes and neither believes in free speech for their opponents.

Widdershins wrote: »

Also, what is she hammering on about Muslims and Jews in post-election America, for? I thought many high profile cases of discrimination and race based crime attributed to Trump's win, have turned out to be faked?

There has been a crapload of fakery, no doubt. However, even prior to Trumps win there was a significant increase in attacks in 2015 (77.9 per million). However, Jews (113 per million) and gay men (110 per million) are still far more likely to experience hate crime, even though the figures for those two groups have decreased significantly in the last decade.

That said, of all those hate crimes, those categorised as assault have been on the increase for the Muslim community (10.9 per million in 2014 rising to 19.4 per million in 2015) but they still fall far below the amount of violent attacks against gay men (49.5 per million).

Link: http://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2017/01/06/what_fbi_stats_tell_us_about_hate_crimes.html

So, the figures for hate crime have indeed risen, but it has absolutely nothing to do with Trump. Mainly because Trump was not on the scene in any major way when these figures were compiled. At the moment there is no data for 2016, so what we have is a case of opinion column journalism par excellence - where stuff is just made up on a whim because it sounds true* ("truthiness") and it suits the agenda - in lieu of any proper studies to back up the claim. There is plenty to blame on Trump without resorting to makey uppey "facts".

*This time next year when they are released I would be none to surprised if they had risen again. But, there is also a good chance they might not have changed drastically at all. Nobody knows, so anything at this point is simply idle speculation.

RabbleRouser2k

Was watching the news the last few days-and Arlene Foster stood out-obviously. Her craziness now is just beyond absurd.

She lost a ton of money, has done a crap job as NI Prime Minister, and then claims misogyny when calls for her to resign start flooding in.

Any other politician would have realised they were crap, and stepped down. She seems to be a deluded person. (I don't care if the IRA tried to put a bomb under her school bus-that has about as much relevance to her 'cash for ash' scheme as the price of tea in China.)

Gotta love how we have so many people who are 'tough' but as soon as they screw up their job, they play the victim.

RabbleRouser2k

And now this - poor diddums.

What kind of world are they living in, huh?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/helen-mcentree-to-make-complaint-as-fellow-td-claims-she-snubs-her-in-dail-corridors-771306.html

CatFromHue

the alternative right used to have it's own late night show on MTV, the standard right was just mixed in with 120 minutes

TheDavester

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

And now this - poor diddums.

What kind of world are they living in, huh?

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/helen-mcentree-to-make-complaint-as-fellow-td-claims-she-snubs-her-in-dail-corridors-771306.html

and they wanted gender quotas ffs...

XavierBoThang

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Was watching the news the last few days-and Arlene Foster stood out-obviously. Her craziness now is just beyond absurd.

She lost a ton of money, has done a crap job as NI Prime Minister, and then claims misogyny when calls for her to resign start flooding in.

Any other politician would have realised they were crap, and stepped down. She seems to be a deluded person. (I don't care if the IRA tried to put a bomb under her school bus-that has about as much relevance to her 'cash for ash' scheme as the price of tea in China.)

Gotta love how we have so many people who are 'tough' but as soon as they screw up their job, they play the victim.

They are picking on me because I'm a woman. Not because I cost the North 400 Million

Peregrine

Can we stay on topic please? If this thread keeps going off topic again, I'll assume the topic has been discussed exhaustively.

Mod

RabbleRouser2k

Back on topic-this...

http://www.thejournal.ie/louise-oneill-twitter-interview-3151701-Dec2016/?utm_source=shortlink

And this doozy...keep in mind this is MONTHS after it was proven completely false, but she calls it 'trolling'...yeah, providing evidence that a story was false is trolling...

What’s your favourite post of yours?
I go on political rants every now and again, especially on my Facebook page, and I enjoy them. I’m not so sure how everyone else feels about them though…. I wrote about the UCD 500 story in February and the amount of people reading, liking, and re-sharing that post was unprecedented for me. It did generate a lot of trolling but that seems to be the price many women have to pay for daring to be political on social media.

So by her logic proving someone is not guilty is providing evidence that they 'are' guilty?

Come on LON, you're 31, not 16.