Louise O Neill on rape culture.

ivytwine · 07-01-2017 10:01AM

midnight city wrote: »

I wonder does a lot of pressure to stay 'on message' come from the editors and the owners.

Probably. And possibly tacitly, because this is an industry struggling for revenue and advertisers come first.

It was once suggested to me in an interview that I was too "political" for the job.

On a unrelated topic, sharing nude photos around of anyone is a scummy thing to do.

ivytwine · 07-01-2017 10:07AM

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems it depends on who is doing the discussing. "Feminists" like O'Neill can wax lyrical about men they'd shag and that's fine, even encouraged, but woe betide if the waxing goes the other direction. Women are always victims, it's always men's fault. The level of hypocrisy with someone like O'Neill is quite staggering. As is the logic disconnect. Pure Chick Think(™).

This is definitely because male sexuality is seen as threatening, violent even. It harks back to an older idea of women's sexuality being passive and non-threatening. It's all going back to these views actually reinforcing the old binaries rather than taking them apart.

In the real world most women don't freak out when a guy says he finds a celeb attractive. I work with mostly men and it's a frequent lunchtime conversation, and I'd be daffy to be concerned by it.

And less of the ChickThink please. If you can say "not all men" I want "not all women" :P

me_right_one · 07-01-2017 10:10AM

midnight city wrote: »

I wonder does a lot of pressure to stay 'on message' come from the editors and the owners.

I would think there is - and the "message" doesn't have to be fixed, just whatever is most controversial to get the most angry clicks.

For example, I remember when the Irish Independent wasn't a rag. You could depend on in for a reasonably balanced view. Then the internet started effecting sales, and suddenly it went through a phase of being pro IRA for a while, then it became a women's fashion newspaper, then a micro-zine, and its latest form of crazy is online populism.

Its all about money.

ivytwine · 07-01-2017 10:13AM

me_right_one wrote: »

I would think there is - and the "message" doesn't have to be fixed, just whatever is most controversial to get the most angry clicks.

For example, I remember when the Irish Independent wasn't a rag. You could depend on in for a reasonably balanced view. Then the internet started effecting sales, and suddenly it went through a phase of being pro IRA for a while, then it became a women's fashion newspaper, then a micro-zine, and its latest form of crazy is online populism.

Its all about money.

On the absolute button. It was once a sign of our political engagement and awareness as a nation that the Indo was the most read paper in the country (it was the Sun in the U.K.). Now it's absolute bottom feeder muck.

me_right_one · 07-01-2017 10:13AM

ivytwine wrote: »

This is definitely because male sexuality is seen as threatening, violent even. It harks back to an older idea of women's sexuality being passive and non-threatening. It's all going back to these views actually reinforcing the old binaries rather than taking them apart.

:eek::eek::eek: What do you mean? By who? This is news to me!

ivytwine · 07-01-2017 10:20AM

me_right_one wrote: »

:eek::eek::eek: What do you mean? By who? This is news to me!

Think I read it somewhere or another

Wibbs · 07-01-2017 10:36AM

ivytwine wrote: »

And less of the ChickThink please. If you can say "not all men" I want "not all women" :P

Oh no for me Chick Think(™) is something I came up with as a mirror to the equally common Bro Science(™). Both are minority thought patterns that should be pointed out and laughed at with extreme prejudice.

The major form of Chick Think(™) is the middle class adolescent daddy's girl in a grown woman's body, milliseconds from hysterics at any time of the day or night, wants the world to be the way she wants it or will stamp her feet, but doesn't know what she wants and if she got "it" she'd still not be happy. "Disorders" or "traumas" real or imagined milked for all they're worth. Victimhood seen as a state of grace. Irony and hypocrisy bypasses cast iron givens. Belief in healing crystals/horoscopes/pound shop Buddhism a bonus.

tritium · 07-01-2017 10:38AM

RayM wrote: »

I'm not telling you anything. I'm not even trying to prove that the Facebook group existed. If it did exist, and was a closed, private group - accessible only to invited members - there is no way that any of the women in question would have known about it. Therefore, how could they have come forward?

The 'Girls I'd shift' group could be seen, viewed and accessed by anyone until it was mentioned in the University Observer - at which point it was hastily deleted. I'm not sure how that disproves the existence of any subsequent groups. Its existence shows that there was a pre-existing culture and that such a group would hardly be unprecedented. Had it not existed, I don't think the 'UCD200' story would have taken off the way it did.

A facebook group is not indicative of a 'pre existing' culture. If that were true then equally you could argue that for example the writings of andrea dworkin and the scum manifesto would be evidence of a culture of man hating in feminism.

I really wish people would stop giving words whatever meaning they like and then using that as some sort of proof of their arguement. Merriam webster defines culture as

" the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group; also : the characteristic features of everyday existence (as diversions or a way of life) shared by people in a place or time <popular culture> <southern culture>"

Neither your example nor o'neills nonsense, both of which reduce to pointing to the behaviour of a handful of gob****es, come anywhere close to illustrating a culture

RabbleRouser2k · 07-01-2017 10:42AM

There are also some papers who come out with the 'jobs will be taken to northern ireland, instead of staying here in ireland'...but then you realise that that paper is printed in N. Ireland...total hypocrisy.

Interesting point about the liberalism within media-I remember similar happening in the college I left. I had a different degree program, but for one module, 3 different degree programs were all sat in this lecture theatre for the same module. The lecturer was completely liberal, pro-feminism, examining media, etc etc...and it was a completely liberal outlook on the class.
At the time, there was some Hunky Dory advert that was going on that 'objectified' women- (never mind said women got paid and knew the campaign's intentions)-and this lecturer claimed to know the person who was in charge of the marketing team

He had sent her emails requesting she visit the college, and that the students could ask her questions...questions he had written. Yeah, you could kind of guess where this was going-he wanted us to essentially bully a woman for doing a job she was paid for, with questions he had written, while claiming to be her friend. 70 students vs one person.
Obviously, she didn't come to the college-probably knew what a rather unkind fellow this guy was.

One of the degree programs he was teaching was a journalistic degree. I imagine many of them went into the field and spewed similar nonsense-though most went into the behind the scenes production of news and journalistic media.

ivytwine · 07-01-2017 10:43AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh no for me Chick Think(™) is something I came up with as a mirror to the equally common Bro Science(™). Both are minority thought patterns that should be pointed out and laughed at with extreme prejudice.

The major form of Chick Think(™) is the middle class adolescent daddy's girl in a grown woman's body, milliseconds from hysterics at any time of the day or night, wants the world to be the way she wants it or will stamp her feet, but doesn't know what she wants and if she got "it" she'd still not be happy. "Disorders" or "traumas" real or imagined milked for all they're worth. Victimhood seen as a state of grace. Irony and hypocrisy bypasses cast iron givens. Belief in healing crystals/horoscopes/pound shop Buddhism a bonus.

Fair enough :P
I am starting to believe though that these people, outside the extreme examples, only really exist online. Most people are relatively normal.

mzungu · 07-01-2017 10:44AM

ivytwine wrote: »

On the absolute button. It was once a sign of our political engagement and awareness as a nation that the Indo was the most read paper in the country (it was the Sun in the U.K.). Now it's absolute bottom feeder muck.

I do like some contributions in the (S)Indo, but its steady move towards tabloid rag over the years is an unfortunate development. Hands up, who actually cares about what Z list celeb Barry Egan saw out on the town during the week?:D

RabbleRouser2k · 07-01-2017 10:48AM

mzungu wrote: »

I do like some contributions in the (S)Indo, but its steady move towards tabloid rag over the years is an unfortunate development. Hands up, who actually cares about what Z list celeb Barry Egan saw out on the town during the week?:D

The Sunday World used to do the same thing-Amanda brunker was in charge of that 'double page spread' in the paper.

No joke, hand on heart and swear to Edward R Murrow-one time she included her 'mother coming out of TEsco's' as one of the celebrity sightings.

I think Brunker calls herself a feminist, though you usually find she does that just to keep her name 'out there'.

RabbleRouser2k · 07-01-2017 11:30AM

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/my-writing-process-is-sitting-in-front-of-my-laptop-and-trying-not-to-cry-438040.html

HEr latest article-an idea she stole from the Guardian...dear Lord, no originality.

Anyways, it includes a 'chick think' checklist-Tarot? Check. Living at home with her parents? Check. (Okay, this one is strange considering she's earning a pretty penny from her book and column).
Unable to use basic devices such as a clock radio? Patriarchy...

I doubt I could write an even worse cliche character if I tried.

Fleawuss · 07-01-2017 11:43AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh no for me Chick Think(™) is something I came up with as a mirror to the equally common Bro Science(™). Both are minority thought patterns that should be pointed out and laughed at with extreme prejudice.

The major form of Chick Think(™) is the middle class adolescent daddy's girl in a grown woman's body, milliseconds from hysterics at any time of the day or night, wants the world to be the way she wants it or will stamp her feet, but doesn't know what she wants and if she got "it" she'd still not be happy. "Disorders" or "traumas" real or imagined milked for all they're worth. Victimhood seen as a state of grace. Irony and hypocrisy bypasses cast iron givens. Belief in healing crystals/horoscopes/pound shop Buddhism a bonus.

Just drop middle class out of that and you might have a point.

The Rape of Lucretia · 07-01-2017 11:48AM

"I try and answer the many, many emails in my inbox and then I would spend an inordinate amount of time on social media.

It was affecting my ability to focus for longer periods of time - something that is essential for an author - so I made the decision to check my Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/Snapchat once a week rather than every day. I can’t understate how much easier it is to concentrate since I did so."

The section above wouldnt even pass the junior cert. Grammar. Tenses. Logic. Please......

Wibbs · 07-01-2017 11:58AM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

HEr latest article-an idea she stole from the Guardian...dear Lord, no originality.

If anyone could point to a better example of withering self absorption and self indulgence laughably masquerading as "art" I'd love to see it.

Okay, this one is strange considering she's earning a pretty penny from her book and column

Not necessarily. People have a tendency to over estimate the earnings of folks in the public eye. This goes triple for writers. Outside of the best seller types it would hardly be a high paying living and consistency would be an issue. It would be hard enough for any writer for an Irish newspaper to get a mortgage on their own.

Unable to use basic devices such as a clock radio? Patriarchy...

More like "tee hee! I'm a girl(pronounced Guuurl)". Like I say, irony bypass.

Fleawuss wrote: »

Just drop middle class out of that and you might have a point.

It's more prevalent among the middle classes, mainly because they can afford to be constant "victims" more easily and spoiled children for longer.

I also left out atomic powered monumental - with the stress on "mental" - levels of self absorption. Indeed I would say that if a defining characteristic is in play with Chick Think(™) this is it. It's where the irony bypass, hypocrisy, hysterics, victimhood and attention seeking finds their wellspring.

RabbleRouser2k · 07-01-2017 12:14PM

Wibbs wrote: »

If anyone could point to a better example of withering self absorption and self indulgence laughably masquerading as "art" I'd love to see it.

Not necessarily. People have a tendency to over estimate the earnings of folks in the public eye. This goes triple for writers. Outside of the best seller types it would hardly be a high paying living and consistency would be an issue. It would be hard enough for any writer for an Irish newspaper to get a mortgage on their own.

Maybe she needs to spend less time on expensive clothes...or funding kickstarters. (she's already funding quite a few-the latest is 'Nasty Women'.).
Or another expensive photocall...where she takes a picture of herself, with her book.
Couldn't write a more annoying 'heroine'.

Also interesting the note 'why' she came out of social media hiding with Amy Huberman's show-an earlier tweet shows her wearing the Amy Huberman line of newbridge jewellery.

So maybe looking out for new jewels?

ivytwine · 07-01-2017 12:20PM

Wibbs wrote: »

If anyone could point to a better example of withering self absorption and self indulgence laughably masquerading as "art" I'd love to see it.

Not necessarily. People have a tendency to over estimate the earnings of folks in the public eye. This goes triple for writers. Outside of the best seller types it would hardly be a high paying living and consistency would be an issue. It would be hard enough for any writer for an Irish newspaper to get a mortgage on their own.

More like "tee hee! I'm a girl(pronounced Guuurl)". Like I say, irony bypass.

It's more prevalent among the middle classes, mainly because they can afford to be constant "victims" more easily and spoiled children for longer.

I also left out atomic powered monumental - with the stress on "mental" - levels of self absorption. Indeed I would say that if a defining characteristic is in play with Chick Think(™) this is it. It's where the irony bypass, hypocrisy, hysterics, victimhood and attention seeking finds their wellspring.

You're forgetting that she's sold the film rights for at least one of the novels and she's got a deal to promote No 7 make up with Boots. Writers don't make much you're right, but I'd find it hard to believe she can't afford to rent a place in Cork. But anyway, it's her decision to live at home. The learned helplessness thing is a personal bugbear of mine. Amazing how some people can't manage a clock radio but an iPhone is never any bother to anyone.

I'm not sure it's a class thing as outside the cities we really only have a middle class in Ireland. *Some* people are extraordinarily cosseted, but again they have loud voices online. Mind you as one of the many culchies living in Dublin, you wouldn't last a day up here if you were completely incapable.

hatrickpatrick · 07-01-2017 12:25PM

ivytwine wrote: »

Fair enough :P
I am starting to believe though that these people, outside the extreme examples, only really exist online. Most people are relatively normal.

The trouble with the "it's only online so let it slide" ideology is that if something isn't challenged online as opposed to being ignored, eventually it bleeds into real life. Trump's alt-right support base is probably a good example. Here in Ireland, we now have a senator talking about legislation to ban online comment sections - an SJW in the flesh, actually proposing legal change from a position of authority.

I wish it was as simple as consigning these people to the ash heap of the online message board, but they are becoming genuinely influential in terms of societal attitudes and even government policy, and that's when they go from being laughable to an actual threat against the values of free society.

ivytwine · 07-01-2017 12:39PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The trouble with the "it's only online so let it slide" ideology is that if something isn't challenged online as opposed to being ignored, eventually it bleeds into real life. Trump's alt-right support base is probably a good example. Here in Ireland, we now have a senator talking about legislation to ban online comment sections - an SJW in the flesh, actually proposing legal change from a position of authority.

I wish it was as simple as consigning these people to the ash heap of the online message board, but they are becoming genuinely influential in terms of societal attitudes and even government policy, and that's when they go from being laughable to an actual threat against the values of free society.

Very good point but I don't know how people can challenge it at this point in time. By definition moderates don't feel as passionately as extremists, and things have gotten so vitriolic on social media people just get silenced and/or fed up. Not to mention the very real prospect that people online can make trouble for you in real life.

goose2005 · 07-01-2017 12:53PM

ivytwine wrote: »

I'm fairly sure that it hasn't been widely disproven, in that, I think LON or possibly someone else wrote a piece saying "well it can't be proven but it's PROBABLY true."

And if it's not true, well it "started a conversation".

me_right_one · 07-01-2017 01:19PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

One of the degree programs he was teaching was a journalistic degree. I imagine many of them went into the field and spewed similar nonsense-though most went into the behind the scenes production of news and journalistic media.

Thats even worse! At least a nutter out in the open is avoidable. But one who hides and manipulates things from within is the most dangerous of all. Kinda makes me glad LON is front-and-centre in the media and not planning school curriculum's.

ivytwine wrote: »

I'm not sure it's a class thing as outside the cities we really only have a middle class in Ireland.. Mind you as one of the many culchies living in Dublin, you wouldn't last a day up here if you were completely incapable.

EXCUSE YOU! I am NOT middle class. I am a proud culchie from the agricultural heartland of Meath

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The trouble with the "it's only online so let it slide" ideology is that if something isn't challenged online as opposed to being ignored, eventually it bleeds into real life. Trump's alt-right support base is probably a good example. Here in Ireland, we now have a senator talking about legislation to ban online comment sections - an SJW in the flesh, actually proposing legal change from a position of authority.

I wish it was as simple as consigning these people to the ash heap of the online message board, but they are becoming genuinely influential in terms of societal attitudes and even government policy, and that's when they go from being laughable to an actual threat against the values of free society.

So what can we do about this? A little, eh, censorship maybe? You know, some common sense rules about what is and isnt ok to post on the internet?

hatrickpatrick · 07-01-2017 01:25PM

me_right_one wrote: »

So what can we do about this? A little, eh, censorship maybe? You know, some common sense rules about what is and isnt ok to post on the internet?

More vocal and organised opposition IMO. Boycott the boycotts, that kind of thing. Where they contact advertisers and demand that they pull advertising from brands that run objectionable stories or tolerate objectionable users, there should be a counter movement to demand that such advertisers don't engage in no platforming, or else they will be boycotted. In the end, it'll come down to which movement has more followers (or more specifically, more followers willing to engage in activism) - the pro or anti censorship side.

deaddonkey15 · 07-01-2017 01:36PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Re: the whole UCD 200 debacle..

Louise came out with a lot of waffle around that time but one of the most infuriating things which she said was in response to it being put to her that photos of naked male students sometimes get passed around without consent also:

"You really can't compare the two as female nudity and male nudity are treated in such different way. Male nudity won't have the same negative impact on a man's social standing.

"There isn't the same amount of shame attached to male sexuality as there is to female sexuality. We have been shamed and silenced for hundreds of years and we carry that history with us.

"There is no point in comparing the two as the impact and the consequences are completely unequal for men and women for having photos shared."

And yet Louise tells us young men today need feminism.... ha! Like a hole in the bloody head they need it.

The above quote was taken from a radio interview Louise gave around the time the UCD 200 story broke and when she was publicly back slapping herself any opportunity she could get (when she wasn't too busy screaming in cottages out in the sticks that is). You can listen to the interview here.

This is unbelievable. I didn't think I could respect LON less or think she was more full of sh*t until I saw this quote and listened to the interview. The double standards is just sickening. The fact that she can harp on for the best part of 13 minutes about how wrong it is that males share nude photos of females and then essential say "yeah but that's not as bad really" when it's put to her that females also share nude photos of males is just unacceptable. I was very disappointed that the interviewer didn't press her more on this because this sort of hypocrisy deserves to be called out. He did, to be fair, ask if female sharing male nudes should be should be looked at with the same disdain as males sharing female nudes in an equal society. Her response that we don't live in an equal society and the repercussions are worse for females is ridiculous. It just further suggests that people like her just love playing the victim card. They claim to want equality yet are quick to dismiss it when it suits them to justify their double standards. As usual it's equality on their terms. It almost seems as though she enjoys this apparent inequality in our society, she thrives on and profits from it after all. What would she have to make noise about to keep herself relevant if these inequalities didn't exist?

Who is she to decide that the repercussions are worse for females than males anyway? Potential employers may also come across male nudes. The shame and embarrassment of a male having his nude photo discovered by a friend, family member, or just other people in his town or college is just as bad as for a female. The stress and worry over who may or may not have seen it is the same regardless of gender. Males can be just as confident/insecure about their bodies as females and this myth that the female body is always objectified and sexualised (mainly by other women) in the media and whereas the male body isn't is just nonsense.

me_right_one · 07-01-2017 01:46PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

More vocal and organised opposition IMO. Boycott the boycotts, that kind of thing. Where they contact advertisers and demand that they pull advertising from brands that run objectionable stories or tolerate objectionable users, there should be a counter movement to demand that such advertisers don't engage in no platforming, or else they will be boycotted. In the end, it'll come down to which movement has more followers (or more specifically, more followers willing to engage in activism) - the pro or anti censorship side.

Or we could just apply the law that already exists - some of which has elements of censorship - to stop extremists from publishing their hate.

It is already illegal to discriminate against someone on the grounds of racial, religious, ethnic, sexual-preference, or any other prejudice. If I denied someone service in my shop based on any of these reasons, I would be brought to court - and rightly so. That in itself is a form of censorship, as I would not be allowed to express my hatred.

But there seems to be a complete "ignore the elephant in the room" situation going on whereby if someone is discriminatory online or in the media, then it is completely ignored. LON accused me, you, and all the other Irish male boardsies of being a rapist, in the wrong. IMO she should be legally held accountable for this. If I followed you around the town shouting "rapist, rapist", no doubt I would be arrested for harassment and charged with public disorder and slander.

But obnoxious SJW's and Alt-Right hate groups get a free pass because their criminal prejudice and life-destroying tactics are done online and in the media. And as you rightly point out, WHEN it is left unchecked, it bleeds into real life. We need to censor this with the laws already in place, just like you would in real life. IMO it should be stopped before it starts.

RabbleRouser2k · 07-01-2017 01:55PM

me_right_one wrote: »

Thats even worse! At least a nutter out in the open is avoidable. But one who hides and manipulates things from within is the most dangerous of all. Kinda makes me glad LON is front-and-centre in the media and not planning school curriculum's.

Thankfully most of it was working with equipment, cameras, sound checks-all that jazz-others took their degrees, went for a masters, and diversified into areas outside of media involvement or production. Probably aiming at other job opportunities, cos media, as it stands, is too unreliable in terms of job security.

Its interesting the note how quickly the feminists turn on another who disagrees with them. I'm no fan of Niamh Horan, but she gets some really bad heat from folks like Una Mullally for having a majorly different opinion.

07-01-2017 01:56PM

There's amazing dichotomy I the whole gender thing when directed towards men. Men are told they need to talk more about their emotions all the time. Yet at the same time they're told that everything they may feel pales when compared to women. "Shaming" about nudity, sure that's worse for women. Fat shaming, worse for women. Unwanted sexual advances, something about power. That's before "toxic masculinity" gets thrown around.

RabbleRouser2k · 07-01-2017 02:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There's amazing dichotomy I the whole gender thing when directed towards men. Men are told they need to talk more about their emotions all the time. Yet at the same time they're told that everything they may feel pales when compared to women. "Shaming" about nudity, sure that's worse for women. Fat shaming, worse for women. Unwanted sexual advances, something about power. That's before "toxic masculinity" gets thrown around.

Or we get the 'sure men cannot be trusted with their mental health, we have to do it for you, make the appointments, all that'. And that happened, on the Late LAte Show, when a psychotherapist said as much.

It just further sowed a complete disconnect with men's mental health.

Wibbs · 07-01-2017 02:10PM

ivytwine wrote: »

You're forgetting that she's sold the film rights for at least one of the novels and she's got a deal to promote No 7 make up with Boots.

What little writers get from selling film rights might surprise you. For an option on a first time writer script that may or may not be green lit and is still in development? If she even got five figures into her hand so far I'd be surprised. Very. When you read headline like "100,000 quid for first script" that's only the marketing hype. It could well be "5000 quid for option, 10,000 for first draft and so forth until flic is finished and that all might add up to a hundred grand". The promotional deal will get in a few quid, but again not nearly as much as people may think and certainly not in a tiny market like Ireland and even here she'd not have that much market recognition. If you look around at "media people", men and women, you tend to find that they end up married/cohabiting with "ordinary" people, with "ordinary" jobs, jobs that pay.

mzungu · 07-01-2017 02:59PM

me_right_one wrote: »

But there seems to be a complete "ignore the elephant in the room" situation going on whereby if someone is discriminatory online or in the media, then it is completely ignored. LON accused me, you, and all the other Irish male boardsies of being a rapist, in the wrong. IMO she should be legally held accountable for this. If I followed you around the town shouting "rapist, rapist", no doubt I would be arrested for harassment and charged with public disorder and slander.

To be fair, while I'm sure a few of her compatriots here and across the pond might have said that all men are rapists, I don't think she has ever said those words exactly, or made a direct accusation like that. Instead, what has been implied is that men are colluders and thus they share some of the responsibility for the actions of others, therefore it is up to them to fix it. Both are absurd standpoints, but to my knowledge she has only expressed the latter (in the documentary).

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments