Louise O Neill on rape culture.

RabbleRouser2k · 10-01-2017 03:41PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Ah I know, I was just having a laugh about the fact that stuff can't even be described without a bucketfull of buzzwords

I'm the exception, I'm bothered by her and her feminism. Mainly, how she hides behind one, then hides behind the other.

Even folks who have stood up and said 'they admire Germaine Greer' (now there's someone who went from being an intelligent feminist to drinking the same crazy as these folks) like Ian O'Doherty, have stood up and said they completely disagree with the intonations of these groups.

RabbleRouser2k · 10-01-2017 03:50PM

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i was speaking to a senior medical official over the weekend and she was talking about abortion and how feminists assign its importance to their cause.

however, her argument is that due to sex-selection across the world, abortion is one of the biggest anti woman procedures you will ever get. research shows that up to 24million more girls were aborted over the last 15 years, primarily due to them being female - ie certain cultures prefer boys as their children.

wont happen in ireland on that scale you would imagine/hope though with the rising influx of foreign cultures youd never know.

I would even argue that that culture is here already- there is always the 'oh, just girls then, no son?'. There is almost this 'you've failed as a parent' if you have either only a girl, or one child. (Though in old terms having one child would be called 'a cuckoo').

So it wouldn't surprise me if someone makes such a choice, or if they are making that choice.

I know it's not politically correct to say this, but there was a recent article in the news about the Citizens Assembly and their 'so many foetuses with down syndrome were aborted' last in so many years by Irish parents. Well, in my eyes, that's what choice is-and with abortion. I have no problem with that. it's the parents choice if they don't want to raise a child with DS, or any other condition. Some parents may have experience of this already, and know the difficulty of doing so. If that is the case, andone supports choice, then no matter whether its choice about gender, medical condition, or the rights of the mother-it's their choice.

RabbleRouser2k · 10-01-2017 04:00PM

Widdershins wrote: »

It's a fairly long article and I haven't read all of it but it does mention that incident. I think Shriver only asserted that writers aren't doing anything harmful by drawing inspiration from various cultures/traditions, which is completely sensible. We'd have no art and literature if some of these loons got their way..and I'm reading the article about the walk-out and she really makes a song and dance about it!

''The stench of privilege hung heavy in the air'' someone needs to make a perfume by that name

''My own mother, as we walked away from the tent, suggested that perhaps I was being too sensitive.''

I imagine her own mother has seen the 'true' white privilege-ya know, the kind of stuff where they tried to 'breed' the aboriginie out of aboriginal folks. (The author is from Queensland, Australia.) Or where casual racism, such as using the 'n' word, still hangs around.

ivytwine · 10-01-2017 04:52PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I would even argue that that culture is here already- there is always the 'oh, just girls then, no son?'. There is almost this 'you've failed as a parent' if you have either only a girl, or one child. (Though in old terms having one child would be called 'a cuckoo').

So it wouldn't surprise me if someone makes such a choice, or if they are making that choice.

In Ireland I think that's died out a lot but there are remnants of it about. I've heard people say things like "oh I wouldn't know how to raise a girl" and odd little things like that.

A friend's grandmother basically refused to have anything to do with her branch of family because they inconveniently neglected to produce sons. And that wasn't long ago at all.

Like again this is what bothers me with current feminism. There is the legacy of actual sexism in the west, it's dying, but we have enough on our plates making sure it dies without making stuff up as well.

me_right_one · 10-01-2017 05:34PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

So it wouldn't surprise me if someone makes such a choice, or if they are making that choice.

I know it's not politically correct to say this, but there was a recent article in the news about the Citizens Assembly and their 'so many foetuses with down syndrome were aborted' last in so many years by Irish parents. Well, in my eyes, that's what choice is-and with abortion. I have no problem with that. it's the parents choice if they don't want to raise a child with DS, or any other condition. Some parents may have experience of this already, and know the difficulty of doing so. If that is the case, andone supports choice, then no matter whether its choice about gender, medical condition, or the rights of the mother-it's their choice.

Thats not politically incorrect, its sick. It is downright psychopathic.

RabbleRouser2k · 10-01-2017 05:51PM

ivytwine wrote: »

I agree with you on the nice idea thing not changing the world unfortunately however I'm not sure I'm with you on the rest. In my experience society in general pays lip service to both men and women's mental health, especially in the last few years. However when it comes to the really really messy reality of severe long-term depression (the long term I think is important to note) or severe illnesses such as schizophrenia etc, the stigma applies to both genders and hasn't gone anywhere. I feel that society is supportive as long as you're neatly crying in a corner for a month or two and are no real trouble to anyone.
I also would have to say my experiences, especially with dating men who are mentally unwell, has been one of being shut out completely emotionally. I don't blame them and I understand it, but whatever we are currently teaching men and boys isn't working. Not necessarily the fault of women as a group, but certainly not helped by this particular group of feminists, who may pay lip service to male suicide, but swiftly condemn straight white men for the world's evils.

I think it's more complicated then that-regarding mental illness I mean. There will be some stereotypes here, so apologies, but I am speaking as someone who has both seen mental health probs, and experienced it as well.

Women, in general, (And, as I said, apologies for stereotypes) are always seen as emotional-so mental illness there is not so much of a surprise . (on the other hand, a woman alcoholic is more of a surprise).
Yet women will seek help, and be more open and comforted when they do. I've noticed, with friends, relatives etc etc, they have an entire 'web' of people they talk to. Even my dad, before his passing, was the same, he had very close friends and family he would talk to all the time.

On the other hand...men...well, it takes ALOT of gumption to seek help. I remember I Was 15 when I first realised I was in the crapper because of mental health issues-and I'm not the youngest person I know who had problems. (The youngest person I know who took their own life was 12). But while I got help the first time, the second time, when I was 19 or 20, the the trouble I had to get good help, just good, not great (cos I knew I needed to fix my own issues internally) well, the help was a lot harder to find. Cutbacks, other issues, in the years since, had made it really difficult. There is too much of a 'here's a pill, I don't wanna know your problem' method to it all, that makes it really hard to get help.

As for relationships, and being open-well, that can depend. MEntal health is a problem, and I am pretty open with people-I find that it has helped me. It is tricky with mental health, but I find that 'a secret' is not healthy, at all.
Some will treat you differently, and others will see you as the same person. While I am not a fan, there was a reason Al Porter was visibly shaking when, while appearing on the Cutting Edge, he spoke about taking Lexipro. There is that 'fear' surrounding it-which has lessened, somewhat, as everyone knows somone struggling with it. (Though the mention of 'manspreading' on the show juxtaposed both the problems and challenges put on and faced by men.)

Talking about it is major-having those friends that know is major-it's like, well, if someone had a nut allergy, it is important to tell as many people as possible that you do so that, if you accidentally eat a peanut, they will know why you've collapsed on the ground. With depression, if you're having that 'off' day-let em know it's not them, it's just the disease. Ditto if work has been tought.

Yet feminism, sorry, the third wave feminism of today, where one is presumed
guilty without proof-that doesn't help us at all. Anything blanket statement is dangerous. And it also doesn't help women either-a constant feeling of victim hood, of 'every man is dangerous, a rapist etc' will do far more damage to them as an individual-I even know one person (personally) who refers to herself as a feminist, and also has a small son, say 'society would be better if there were no men'...imagine saying that to her son and seeing his reaction?
In general, what Lon and co will not admit is that their brand of feminism is dying-women, young and older, don't buy it. When so much of it is reactionary, often deluded, and dangerous, to say the least...I mean, look how quick people were to cover their butts when 'rapist' Ched Evans was acquitted? While I have no doubt he was morally questionable, he was not a rapist by law.
Yet according to the third wavers, merely talking to her made him a rapist.

RabbleRouser2k · 10-01-2017 06:30PM

ivytwine wrote: »

In Ireland I think that's died out a lot but there are remnants of it about. I've heard people say things like "oh I wouldn't know how to raise a girl" and odd little things like that.

A friend's grandmother basically refused to have anything to do with her branch of family because they inconveniently neglected to produce sons. And that wasn't long ago at all.

Like again this is what bothers me with current feminism. There is the legacy of actual sexism in the west, it's dying, but we have enough on our plates making sure it dies without making stuff up as well.

When I've shared with women, house sharing I mean, I've had one landlord tell me to 'keep the house tidy for the girls, they'll love you for it' or this whole 'special treatment' talk about women roommates (wear slippers, those shoes aren't suitable etc)-yet my experiences with women has been a tad strange, to say the least (as had this landlord's-he'd spoken to me before about why he'd 'never take on women tenants'-problems with noise, tidyness etc and his luck with them was none too good when I stayed there. One evicted, two more left before the tenancy ran out).

Some women seem to think that living in a rented accomodation=owning the property. They get a stark wake up call when the neighbours ring the landlord regarding noise or rubbish spilling out of the bins (issues I tried to talk to them about, but when the neighbours complained to landlord, they listened).
In another estate, some spoilt girl (her actions don't make her a woman) completely destroyed a house owned by a former landlord-he evicted her,and her roommates, but I doubt the deposit covered the damage.
There has been a certain degree of 'protect the women' but tbh, 'special treatment' has, in my experience, left many incredibly immature.

I know women who will actually cry when you tell them, in a normal tone, to just cut the noise or be tidier. They're the same age as Lon, and they act like hysterical teenagers. I've known young women, 19, or 20, who are much stronger-have a better view of men, and yet don't take any critique to heart-when I apologised to one over a simple misunderstanding on my part, she was more surprised than anything.

neonsofa · 10-01-2017 06:33PM

ivytwine wrote: »

In Ireland I think that's died out a lot but there are remnants of it about. I've heard people say things like "oh I wouldn't know how to raise a girl" and odd little things like that.

A friend's grandmother basically refused to have anything to do with her branch of family because they inconveniently neglected to produce sons. And that wasn't long ago at all.

Like again this is what bothers me with current feminism. There is the legacy of actual sexism in the west, it's dying, but we have enough on our plates making sure it dies without making stuff up as well.

I've heard the other way around- "so now you just need to try for the girl and your family will be complete"/"will you keep trying til you get the girl?"/"can't be surrounded by boys for life, you need a girl to be in your corner" etc. In actual fact I've only ever heard comments made in relation to a girl being wanted/needed. Sure I rememeber all the tabloids about Victoria Beckham finally having her little girl. Having said that, in all those cases they already had the boys, but in cases of families with just girls that I know I've never heard comments about future boys or completing the family or any other insensitive comments like that.

ivytwine · 10-01-2017 06:40PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

I think it's more complicated then that-regarding mental illness I mean. There will be some stereotypes here, so apologies, but I am speaking as someone who has both seen mental health probs, and experienced it as well.

Women, in general, (And, as I said, apologies for stereotypes) are always seen as emotional-so mental illness there is not so much of a surprise . (on the other hand, a woman alcoholic is more of a surprise).
Yet women will seek help, and be more open and comforted when they do. I've noticed, with friends, relatives etc etc, they have an entire 'web' of people they talk to. Even my dad, before his passing, was the same, he had very close friends and family he would talk to all the time.

On the other hand...men...well, it takes ALOT of gumption to seek help. I remember I Was 15 when I first realised I was in the crapper because of mental health issues-and I'm not the youngest person I know who had problems. (The youngest person I know who took their own life was 12). But while I got help the first time, the second time, when I was 19 or 20, the the trouble I had to get good help, just good, not great (cos I knew I needed to fix my own issues internally) well, the help was a lot harder to find. Cutbacks, other issues, in the years since, had made it really difficult. There is too much of a 'here's a pill, I don't wanna know your problem' method to it all, that makes it really hard to get help.

As for relationships, and being open-well, that can depend. MEntal health is a problem, and I am pretty open with people-I find that it has helped me. It is tricky with mental health, but I find that 'a secret' is not healthy, at all.
Some will treat you differently, and others will see you as the same person. While I am not a fan, there was a reason Al Porter was visibly shaking when, while appearing on the Cutting Edge, he spoke about taking Lexipro. There is that 'fear' surrounding it-which has lessened, somewhat, as everyone knows somone struggling with it. (Though the mention of 'manspreading' on the show juxtaposed both the problems and challenges put on and faced by men.)

Talking about it is major-having those friends that know is major-it's like, well, if someone had a nut allergy, it is important to tell as many people as possible that you do so that, if you accidentally eat a peanut, they will know why you've collapsed on the ground. With depression, if you're having that 'off' day-let em know it's not them, it's just the disease. Ditto if work has been tought.

Yet feminism, sorry, the third wave feminism of today, where one is presumed
guilty without proof-that doesn't help us at all. Anything blanket statement is dangerous. And it also doesn't help women either-a constant feeling of victim hood, of 'every man is dangerous, a rapist etc' will do far more damage to them as an individual-I even know one person (personally) who refers to herself as a feminist, and also has a small son, say 'society would be better if there were no men'...imagine saying that to her son and seeing his reaction?
In general, what Lon and co will not admit is that their brand of feminism is dying-women, young and older, don't buy it. When so much of it is reactionary, often deluded, and dangerous, to say the least...I mean, look how quick people were to cover their butts when 'rapist' Ched Evans was acquitted? While I have no doubt he was morally questionable, he was not a rapist by law.
Yet according to the third wavers, merely talking to her made him a rapist.

Sorry to hear of your struggles RabbleRouser, it's no craic at all. I agree that traditionally women were seen as more emotional and neurotic, there is also the added pressure that a man "shouldn't feel like this" even in this day and age. (A bit of a stereotype I know, and I don't know what it's actually like to navigate the world as a man).

Nail on the head about the poor treatment available, and I think this is why the HSE launched the "Little Things" campaign so they could be seen to do something about it. But these steps only really work for mild to moderate issues and as you say you have to be careful who you choose to open up to. I also think- though could be wrong- that Al Porter is the first Irish celebrity I know of to speak about being on meds. And I don't blame him for being nervous because people have a terrible attitude to meds.

I hope someone pulled that woman up when she said that about men.

I deliberately have avoided coverage of the Ched Evans case but from what I can see it seemed to be a police/media witch hunt which served nobody well in the end. And it's the witch-hunting element that has me so fed up with it. As I said earlier LON could have just made a dignified point about John Boland and moved on, but it turned into an outrage fest. For example I was in an online music group with a very leftist bent and every time anyone said anything about the Beatles someone would chime in with "ughhhhh John Lennon beat his wife". Every bloody time. I mean everyone knows that (Lennon himself worked hard to change and recognised his behaviour was appalling). What is the point of witch-hunting a man who's been dead for 36 years? Just let people enjoy Strawberry Fields for fecks sake.

It's not the same as calling someone out if they say something racist or sexist. I've done that in real life but just make your point once and move on. Don't beat someone over the head with it. And don't drag something that they can't help- race and gender- into it either.

hatrickpatrick · 10-01-2017 07:12PM

Regarding mental health, I can say anecdotally that mainstream 'man-shaming' had a profound effect on me as a kid and messed me up for many years. Now, I was very precocious in terms of getting interested in politics and current affairs (my family is literally comprised of politicians, activists, journalists and public watchdogs) and I was that kid at 8 years old who'd pay attention to the news radio on the way to school and flick to news bulletins in nickelodeon ad breaks, so I'm perhaps not a reliable subject. However, I noticed and profoundly resented from a very early age how boys and men are demonised in the media - boys are no good at school, boys are rough and disobedient, men are violent, men are thick, young men are alcoholic, rude, sexual predators, if women ran the world it would be a better place because testosterone makes men irresponsible, yadda f*cking yadda.

Combine this with societal crap - the old nursery rhyme about sugar and slice vs slugs and snails, the fact that boys are instilled with this whole "ladies first" and "never hit a girl, even if she attacks you", the acceptability of "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t shirts while blue can't say anything bad about girls without adults (rightly) losing their sh!t - all led me to question as a preteen why, because I was born male, I was apparently valued less, was fair game for violence and mockery while girls weren't, was a second class citizen in terms of always having to let girls go ahead of me just because I was a boy, etc etc etc - it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that this avalanche of anti-male crap doesn't have a psychological effect. I was an avid reader of Enid Blighton as a kid (I mean who wasn't

) and I remember being appalled at the double standards displayed in one of her books, when the crew visits a nasty family and are incensed that the father canes the girls as well as the guys when they step out of line...

It surely sounds trivialistic and ridiculous, but just think how that impacts somebody who is forming their identity, perhaps slightly earlier than many kids but all the same. It took me years to shake that off, I was both in awe of and terrified of girls for my first few years of puberty because of this crap.

Can anyone honestly say that it's right or fair for young boys to be subjected to that kind of onslaught of anti male propaganda? And sure, feminists will shout "girls are treated crappily by the media as well" but the difference is that this is being recognised, discussed, and opposed by polite society and the mainstream. Boys are still fair game, and I find that to be profoundly wrong on so many levels.

mzungu · 10-01-2017 09:35PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Regarding mental health, I can say anecdotally that mainstream 'man-shaming' had a profound effect on me as a kid and messed me up for many years. Now, I was very precocious in terms of getting interested in politics and current affairs (my family is literally comprised of politicians, activists, journalists and public watchdogs) and I was that kid at 8 years old who'd pay attention to the news radio on the way to school and flick to news bulletins in nickelodeon ad breaks, so I'm perhaps not a reliable subject. However, I noticed and profoundly resented from a very early age how boys and men are demonised in the media - boys are no good at school, boys are rough and disobedient, men are violent, men are thick, young men are alcoholic, rude, sexual predators, if women ran the world it would be a better place because testosterone makes men irresponsible, yadda f*cking yadda.

Could you provide a few examples please? I can't recall any specific anti-men sentiment, like the ones you listed above, in the media when I was growing up. I would be interested in hearing where abouts in the media (specific tv shows, movies, characters etc) you found it.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Combine this with societal crap - the old nursery rhyme about sugar and slice vs slugs and snails, the fact that boys are instilled with this whole "ladies first" and "never hit a girl, even if she attacks you", the acceptability of "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t shirts while blue can't say anything bad about girls without adults (rightly) losing their sh!t - all led me to question as a preteen why, because I was born male, I was apparently valued less, was fair game for violence and mockery while girls weren't, was a second class citizen in terms of always having to let girls go ahead of me just because I was a boy, etc etc etc - it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that this avalanche of anti-male crap doesn't have a psychological effect. I was an avid reader of Enid Blighton as a kid (I mean who wasn't ) and I remember being appalled at the double standards displayed in one of her books, when the crew visits a nasty family and are incensed that the father canes the girls as well as the guys when they step out of line...

I don't see how chivalry would make one feel like a second class citizen and I would not subscribe to the idea that it has a negative psychological effect. For example, Kids TV these days, and for the last 10-15 years at least, is so saccharine sweet it should come with a health warning to diabetics. There are still high instances disillusioned young men out there with serious issues. This leads me to believe the root of the problem lies elsewhere.

jimgoose · 10-01-2017 09:54PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Regarding mental health, I can say anecdotally that mainstream 'man-shaming' had a profound effect on me as a kid and messed me up for many years. Now, I was very precocious in terms of getting interested in politics and current affairs (my family is literally comprised of politicians, activists, journalists and public watchdogs) and I was that kid at 8 years old who'd pay attention to the news radio on the way to school and flick to news bulletins in nickelodeon ad breaks, so I'm perhaps not a reliable subject. However, I noticed and profoundly resented from a very early age how boys and men are demonised in the media - boys are no good at school, boys are rough and disobedient, men are violent, men are thick, young men are alcoholic, rude, sexual predators, if women ran the world it would be a better place because testosterone makes men irresponsible, yadda f*cking yadda.

Combine this with societal crap - the old nursery rhyme about sugar and slice vs slugs and snails, the fact that boys are instilled with this whole "ladies first" and "never hit a girl, even if she attacks you", the acceptability of "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t shirts while blue can't say anything bad about girls without adults (rightly) losing their sh!t - all led me to question as a preteen why, because I was born male, I was apparently valued less, was fair game for violence and mockery while girls weren't, was a second class citizen in terms of always having to let girls go ahead of me just because I was a boy, etc etc etc - it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that this avalanche of anti-male crap doesn't have a psychological effect. I was an avid reader of Enid Blighton as a kid (I mean who wasn't ) and I remember being appalled at the double standards displayed in one of her books, when the crew visits a nasty family and are incensed that the father canes the girls as well as the guys when they step out of line...

It surely sounds trivialistic and ridiculous, but just think how that impacts somebody who is forming their identity, perhaps slightly earlier than many kids but all the same. It took me years to shake that off, I was both in awe of and terrified of girls for my first few years of puberty because of this crap.

Can anyone honestly say that it's right or fair for young boys to be subjected to that kind of onslaught of anti male propaganda? And sure, feminists will shout "girls are treated crappily by the media as well" but the difference is that this is being recognised, discussed, and opposed by polite society and the mainstream. Boys are still fair game, and I find that to be profoundly wrong on so many levels.

Strap on a pair. You might even find they suit you.

hatrickpatrick · 10-01-2017 10:09PM

mzungu wrote: »

Could you provide a few examples please? I can't recall any specific anti-men sentiment, like the ones you listed above, in the media when I was growing up. I would be interested in hearing where abouts in the media (specific tv shows, movies, characters etc) you found it.

I was actually referring to current affairs and news programs, predominantly.

I don't see how chivalry would make one feel like a second class citizen and I would not subscribe to the idea that it has a negative psychological effect.

If one is brought up with the idea that boys must (a) put girls first and (b) always be nicer to girls than girls are obliged to be in return, how does that not lead one to conclude that they somehow matter less because of their gender?

For example, Kids TV these days, and for the last 10-15 years at least, is so saccharine sweet it should come with a health warning to diabetics. There are still high instances disillusioned young men out there with serious issues. This leads me to believe the root of the problem lies elsewhere.

So do you think that young boys are no longer being brought up with all the "ladies first" crap that my generation was raised on?

jimgoose wrote: »

Strap on a pair. You might even find they suit you.

Alas, we're talking about an age at which my rather magnificent pair had yet to descend. :pac:

ivytwine · 10-01-2017 10:18PM

neonsofa wrote: »

I've heard the other way around- "so now you just need to try for the girl and your family will be complete"/"will you keep trying til you get the girl?"/"can't be surrounded by boys for life, you need a girl to be in your corner" etc. In actual fact I've only ever heard comments made in relation to a girl being wanted/needed. Sure I rememeber all the tabloids about Victoria Beckham finally having her little girl. Having said that, in all those cases they already had the boys, but in cases of families with just girls that I know I've never heard comments about future boys or completing the family or any other insensitive comments like that.

There's definitely an element of "oh you must have both genders to complete your family": like I know a family with five girls and they "kept trying" to get a boy until the mother had had enough, and likewise families with all boys who were told to keep trying for a girl.

I think though that might be just Irish weirdness, we seem to love sticking our noses into other people's business.

ivytwine · 10-01-2017 10:24PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

When I've shared with women, house sharing I mean, I've had one landlord tell me to 'keep the house tidy for the girls, they'll love you for it' or this whole 'special treatment' talk about women roommates (wear slippers, those shoes aren't suitable etc)-yet my experiences with women has been a tad strange, to say the least (as had this landlord's-he'd spoken to me before about why he'd 'never take on women tenants'-problems with noise, tidyness etc and his luck with them was none too good when I stayed there. One evicted, two more left before the tenancy ran out).

Some women seem to think that living in a rented accomodation=owning the property. They get a stark wake up call when the neighbours ring the landlord regarding noise or rubbish spilling out of the bins (issues I tried to talk to them about, but when the neighbours complained to landlord, they listened).
In another estate, some spoilt girl (her actions don't make her a woman) completely destroyed a house owned by a former landlord-he evicted her,and her roommates, but I doubt the deposit covered the damage.
There has been a certain degree of 'protect the women' but tbh, 'special treatment' has, in my experience, left many incredibly immature.

I know women who will actually cry when you tell them, in a normal tone, to just cut the noise or be tidier. They're the same age as Lon, and they act like hysterical teenagers. I've known young women, 19, or 20, who are much stronger-have a better view of men, and yet don't take any critique to heart-when I apologised to one over a simple misunderstanding on my part, she was more surprised than anything.

I think that might be just the individual people involved rather than a gender thing. I've lived with my fair share of doses and they've been equally split between men and women. Spoiled boys mightn't throw tantrums but they can be just as inconsiderate about noise etc

ivytwine · 10-01-2017 11:05PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If one is brought up with the idea that boys must (a) put girls first and (b) always be nicer to girls than girls are obliged to be in return, how does that not lead one to conclude that they somehow matter less because of their gender?

So do you think that young boys are no longer being brought up with all the "ladies first" crap that my generation was raised on?

Well you could also accurately come to the conclusion that this is because women are the "weaker sex" who need men to protect them. I mean the not hitting girls thing is fair: equally you shouldn't hit boys, but I'm physically tiny and a blow from a big man could feasibly kill me. I do think kids should be taught to not hit anyone, and women hitting men is not ok either.

Ladies first is going out with the ark I'd say. I think it's literally only ever been said to me ironically.

It's all very paternalistic in the old sense, the stuff we teach boys. You know why it was women and children first on the Titanic? Not necessarily because women were more important- their opinions certainly weren't given the same weight as men's- but because they'd get in the way of the men's work to try and save the ship. Molly Brown tried to take practical action was shut down.

Look it's not right. Any of it. Men were often seen as expendable in war, disaster etc, but it's not because they were less important socially: because they were seen as stronger, more capable, stoic, brave, more intellectually rigorous- things women were not seen as being.

The legacy of this which remains should be challenged by good parenting. I was just young enough for the "boys are stupid..." thing and I distinctly remember my mother detesting it- and telling me exactly why it was wrong.

mzungu · 10-01-2017 11:19PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I was actually referring to current affairs and news programs, predominantly.

Fair enough, I misread your original post. Nevertheless, I would still be interested in a few examples from current affairs.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If one is brought up with the idea that boys must (a) put girls first and (b) always be nicer to girls than girls are obliged to be in return, how does that not lead one to conclude that they somehow matter less because of their gender?

It is a courtesy thing. I never came to the conclusion that men mattered less because of it.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So do you think that young boys are no longer being brought up with all the "ladies first" crap that my generation was raised on?

TBH I have no idea what boys are being brought up to do today, mainly because it differs from family to family. But, among young couples there has been significant changes in the norms regarding chivalry and this would lead me to believe things have changed. For example, it is no longer a rule that the man pays on the first date and stuff like that and you would find that most couples would split things 50/50 etc. So, things have moved on a great deal and the rules of chivalry have evolved along with women's liberation. It appears to me that it looks to be heading in the direction of being mutual courtesy between people as opposed to chivalry.

Widdershins · 11-01-2017 12:36AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Regarding mental health, I can say anecdotally that mainstream 'man-shaming' had a profound effect on me as a kid and messed me up for many years. Now, I was very precocious in terms of getting interested in politics and current affairs (my family is literally comprised of politicians, activists, journalists and public watchdogs) and I was that kid at 8 years old who'd pay attention to the news radio on the way to school and flick to news bulletins in nickelodeon ad breaks, so I'm perhaps not a reliable subject. However, I noticed and profoundly resented from a very early age how boys and men are demonised in the media - boys are no good at school, boys are rough and disobedient, men are violent, men are thick, young men are alcoholic, rude, sexual predators, if women ran the world it would be a better place because testosterone makes men irresponsible, yadda f*cking yadda.

Combine this with societal crap - the old nursery rhyme about sugar and slice vs slugs and snails, the fact that boys are instilled with this whole "ladies first" and "never hit a girl, even if she attacks you", the acceptability of "boys are stupid, throw rocks at them" t shirts while blue can't say anything bad about girls without adults (rightly) losing their sh!t - all led me to question as a preteen why, because I was born male, I was apparently valued less, was fair game for violence and mockery while girls weren't, was a second class citizen in terms of always having to let girls go ahead of me just because I was a boy, etc etc etc - it would be absolutely ridiculous to suggest that this avalanche of anti-male crap doesn't have a psychological effect. I was an avid reader of Enid Blighton as a kid (I mean who wasn't ) and I remember being appalled at the double standards displayed in one of her books, when the crew visits a nasty family and are incensed that the father canes the girls as well as the guys when they step out of line...

It surely sounds trivialistic and ridiculous, but just think how that impacts somebody who is forming their identity, perhaps slightly earlier than many kids but all the same. It took me years to shake that off, I was both in awe of and terrified of girls for my first few years of puberty because of this crap.

Can anyone honestly say that it's right or fair for young boys to be subjected to that kind of onslaught of anti male propaganda? And sure, feminists will shout "girls are treated crappily by the media as well" but the difference is that this is being recognised, discussed, and opposed by polite society and the mainstream. Boys are still fair game, and I find that to be profoundly wrong on so many levels.

I have an example of double standards for you. Harry Potter. Hermione punches Draco Malfoy in the face and she's a hero. Imagine if Harry punched Bellatrix LeStrange in the face? Or an unlikeable female character his own age, if there was one.

Widdershins · 11-01-2017 12:39AM

ivytwine wrote: »

You know why it was women and children first on the Titanic? Not necessarily because women were more important- their opinions certainly weren't given the same weight as men's- but because they'd get in the way of the men's work to try and save the ship. Molly Brown tried to take practical action was shut down.

I had no idea! You learn something new every day.

CaptainInsano · 11-01-2017 12:46AM

Your man who got a slap across the face then stabbed in the shoulder by his girlfriend for eating all the chips is the laughing stock of the internet.

Widdershins · 11-01-2017 01:04AM

CaptainInsano wrote: »

Your man who got a slap across the face then stabbed in the shoulder by his girlfriend for eating all the chips is the laughing stock of the internet.

I know a man who was stabbed by a woman with a fork, for eating audibly. People seemed to find it funny. I doubt they'd hesitate to see it for assault if the roles were reversed.

Outlaw Pete · 11-01-2017 01:58AM

In fairness I had to laugh when I read about that guy that cut off his wife's clitoris and labia and then put them in a garbage disposal right after he found out she had been cheating on him. Yes!

........is something you would never hear said but yet for some reason Sharon O thought it was hilarious.

Makes you think Ozzy must have a death wish after what he got up recently.

If you listen closely, right at the end of that you'll notice she says she 'loves' Lorena Bobbitt. Well, Lorena was on a TV show recently in the states and can anyone ever envisage a man who sexually mutilated his wife with a knife as slept getting invited on a TV show a decade later, let alone get a standing ovation?

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

RabbleRouser2k · 11-01-2017 02:21AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In fairness I had to laugh when I read about that guy that cut off his wife's clitoris and labia and then put them in a garbage disposal right after he found out she had been cheating on him. Yes!

........is something you would never hear said but yet for some reason Sharon O thought it was hilarious.

Makes you think Ozzy must have a death wish after what he got up recently.

If you listen closely, right at the end of that you'll notice she says she 'loves' Lorena Bobbitt. Well, Lorena was on a TV show recently in the states and can anyone ever envisage a man who sexually mutilated his wife with a knife as slept getting invited on a TV show a decade later, let alone get a standing ovation?

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

He's not the best example to use-just yesterday, he said Asian men aren't attractive...
The guy claims he's straight, what the hell does he know?

(Plus I remember noticing girls getting the vapours over Brandon Lee, from the Crow, walking around shirtless...so I don't get his thinking)

Sharon O's crew had to apologise-there was rightful condemnation for that incident. But when has Sharon Osbourne been relevant? She's the woman who'll post you a box of her literal sh!t if you in some way insult her...which is easy, tbh.

Sara Gilbert, mind was the only one who didn't laugh-she probably understands that yeah, reverse the roles-and nobody would applaud.

RabbleRouser2k · 11-01-2017 06:01AM

ivytwine wrote: »

Sorry to hear of your struggles RabbleRouser, it's no craic at all. I agree that traditionally women were seen as more emotional and neurotic, there is also the added pressure that a man "shouldn't feel like this" even in this day and age. (A bit of a stereotype I know, and I don't know what it's actually like to navigate the world as a man).

Nail on the head about the poor treatment available, and I think this is why the HSE launched the "Little Things" campaign so they could be seen to do something about it. But these steps only really work for mild to moderate issues and as you say you have to be careful who you choose to open up to. I also think- though could be wrong- that Al Porter is the first Irish celebrity I know of to speak about being on meds. And I don't blame him for being nervous because people have a terrible attitude to meds.

I hope someone pulled that woman up when she said that about men.

I deliberately have avoided coverage of the Ched Evans case but from what I can see it seemed to be a police/media witch hunt which served nobody well in the end. And it's the witch-hunting element that has me so fed up with it. As I said earlier LON could have just made a dignified point about John Boland and moved on, but it turned into an outrage fest. For example I was in an online music group with a very leftist bent and every time anyone said anything about the Beatles someone would chime in with "ughhhhh John Lennon beat his wife". Every bloody time. I mean everyone knows that (Lennon himself worked hard to change and recognised his behaviour was appalling). What is the point of witch-hunting a man who's been dead for 36 years? Just let people enjoy Strawberry Fields for fecks sake.

It's not the same as calling someone out if they say something racist or sexist. I've done that in real life but just make your point once and move on. Don't beat someone over the head with it. And don't drag something that they can't help- race and gender- into it either.

Yeah, 2016 was particularly tough, tbh. Just a lot of stuff happened, it made it tough to get through the year-so yeah, I had to seek out some help.

It's pretty tough, in many respects, to even show emotion as a male-like, even losing your cool, or breaking down crying (even at a funeral, for example) is still seen as a weakness. Like, it has changed quite a bit, but its still seen as a weakness. That said, I know for women, it can be the opposite-to show strength or confidence means 'b!itch'.

Sadly, the only person I know of who spoke about being on meds was Sinead O'Connor-and she then turned around afterwards and said she had been 'misdiagnosed' and stopped taking the meds.
Sinead is someone I have always found to be a rather detrimental figure for mental health issues-as she is so self destructive she paints a dark picture of any kind of health problem. For example, the time she 'went missing' created this sense of worry among fans-and yet months later we discover it was more related to owing a massive tax bill. Others have spoken about their health problems, but Marian Keyes, Nikki HAyes and Niall Breslin have been the most vocal about it.

Hayes tried medication, it didn't quite work out for her the first time (the meds I mean) but has since started taking medication to aid her. She said she had problems from her teens, got help, but things got worse roughly around the time of her dad's passing in 2009.
But then again, there is an understanding there, among women I mean, and a sort of 'Oh God, things must be so horrible for her because she's a woman, and and women speak about their problems-so it must have been huge issues'. But I don't know if 'Nick' Hayes would get that much support-just from my own observations.

I do have to admit that when I saw Simon Young, in 2011, speak out about his depression after years of it being referred to by other names (if it was discussed, there were other conditions that were named, one involving a vein near his brain, but depression was hidden), I was shocked. A stalwart of my childhood speaking about issues I went through did surprise me. And his was from trying times, as all of us go through. But it left him with a serious mental health issue. His speaking out 6 years ago shocked me, tbh. But it showed an important lesson-that one can get through it.

Oh yeah, the Ched Evans thing-or the John Lennon thing-or only a few months ago, Marlon Brando-where people accused him of rape in an incident that, while completely questionable, wasn't rape.
But the media reported it as such because dead people (Brando and Schneider) can't refute any accusations once they are gone.Only Bertolucci remains-and he's gone on record saying that 'the butter' was the only addition to the scene-it was all scripted. But Brando and Schneider are not around to talk about it anything anymore.
But, as a recent viral video, involving Denzel Washington noted-the media wants a story, print whatever they can before the competition can do the same-and if its a lie, who cares, the paper is sold- we can just print a stamp sized retraction and alls fair again.
In my eyes, LON was like the bullying schoolgirl who wanted to 'get back' at the person who criticised her outfit-it was all kinds of shades of mean girls-and from someone of her age, all the more ridiculous. Boland hasn't the time to be dealing with immature girls-and she's definitely suffering from arrested development at this stage.
A grown up adult would handle it with dignity and class-but she seems to possess neither.

Well, I personally sneered at her, and mocked her opinion, quite honestly. She was 25/26 so she should know better-but some people just fail repeatedly until they realise its them, not society that's at fault.

Oh completely. I see that in media too, as well as in real life. Eventually, people can forget why you were admonishing a person, and suddenly think 'hey, this person is being a jerk-and all because that other guy said some horrible things'. It's such a hard line to notice, and then you cross it and realise there is no way back.

py2006 · 11-01-2017 08:38AM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Sharon O's crew had to apologise-there was rightful condemnation for that incident.

Skip to 5:10 for the 'apology'

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

ivytwine · 11-01-2017 09:14AM

Widdershins wrote: »

I have an example of double standards for you. Harry Potter. Hermione punches Draco Malfoy in the face and she's a hero. Imagine if Harry punched Bellatrix LeStrange in the face? Or an unlikeable female character his own age, if there was one.

Welllllll.... I think that was less a gender thing than Hermione had been bullied by Malfoy for about three years at that point and she just snaps. It's written that it's completely out of character for her and a sign of the stress she's under. Probably wouldn't have been written had the genders had been reversed, but Harry, while he doesn't punch Bellatrix in the face, tries to Cruciatius Curse on her, which in the real world would be the equivalent of using thumbscrews on someone.

Yeah, I'm a nerd :P

Harry Potter is an interesting example in that it was written by a woman, but the most potent villain in the whole thing is a woman- Umbridge. She's far nastier and realistic than Voldemort. Gillian Flynn, author of Gone Girl, got stick for creating horrible female characters. More of it I say. More proper female villains!

Widdershins wrote: »

I had no idea! You learn something new every day.

At that point in history it was so established that they probably didn't even think "this is because women would get in the way". But that's definitely the origin of it. It's why women were seen as bad luck on ships for a long time; they just got in the way in the view of the sailors.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

(Plus I remember noticing girls getting the vapours over Brandon Lee, from the Crow, walking around shirtless...so I don't get his thinking)

Poor beautiful Brandon

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, 2016 was particularly tough, tbh. Just a lot of stuff happened, it made it tough to get through the year-so yeah, I had to seek out some help.

Sorry to hear that. It seemed to be a ****ty year for everyone! Hope you're feeling a bit better, or more level, now.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

It's pretty tough, in many respects, to even show emotion as a male-like, even losing your cool, or breaking down crying (even at a funeral, for example) is still seen as a weakness. Like, it has changed quite a bit, but its still seen as a weakness. That said, I know for women, it can be the opposite-to show strength or confidence means 'b!itch'.

Nail on the head. And the funny thing is so much of it's in our head, and of our own making. I don't think I know anyone who would judge a man crying at a funeral. And you're right, outside of the Twittersphere, many women struggle with the balance between confidence and coming across as a bitch- largely created in our own heads, it must be said.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Sadly, the only person I know of who spoke about being on meds was Sinead O'Connor-and she then turned around afterwards and said she had been 'misdiagnosed' and stopped taking the meds.
Sinead is someone I have always found to be a rather detrimental figure for mental health issues-as she is so self destructive she paints a dark picture of any kind of health problem. For example, the time she 'went missing' created this sense of worry among fans-and yet months later we discover it was more related to owing a massive tax bill. Others have spoken about their health problems, but Marian Keyes, Nikki HAyes and Niall Breslin have been the most vocal about it.

Sinead is an example of that "messy" thing I was getting at. People do often lose patience with her but she is an example of what someone with a long-term condition can actually be like, and unfortunately that can mean self-destructive and not pleasant to be around. Some of the stick she gets though is very cruel and often comes out of the mouth of people who will then turn around and praise Bressie. (Not a criticism of him, but he does fit what maybe some would like to think as a "perfect" mentally-ill person; articulate, sensitive, and above all, not a "mess" in public).

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Hayes tried medication, it didn't quite work out for her the first time (the meds I mean) but has since started taking medication to aid her. She said she had problems from her teens, got help, but things got worse roughly around the time of her dad's passing in 2009.
But then again, there is an understanding there, among women I mean, and a sort of 'Oh God, things must be so horrible for her because she's a woman, and and women speak about their problems-so it must have been huge issues'. But I don't know if 'Nick' Hayes would get that much support-just from my own observations.

I do have to admit that when I saw Simon Young, in 2011, speak out about his depression after years of it being referred to by other names (if it was discussed, there were other conditions that were named, one involving a vein near his brain, but depression was hidden), I was shocked. A stalwart of my childhood speaking about issues I went through did surprise me. And his was from trying times, as all of us go through. But it left him with a serious mental health issue. His speaking out 6 years ago shocked me, tbh. But it showed an important lesson-that one can get through it.

I didn't know about either Simon Young or Nikki Hayes. It's hard to know but I don't think Al Porter has faced much stick about speaking out about his issues, apart from the usual people who will call it attention seeking etc.

Troll wrote: »

Trollish

It's dying out; chivalry I mean. The paying for dinner thing came from a time where men almost always earned more than women, and I think most couples- beyond one or two throwbacks- go 50/50 most of the time. Again it all comes from a time where women were seen as weak and in need of protection; not necessarily more important, or only more important in "putting on a pedestal" sense.

Wibbs · 11-01-2017 09:43AM

ivytwine wrote: »

You know why it was women and children first on the Titanic? Not necessarily because women were more important- their opinions certainly weren't given the same weight as men's- but because they'd get in the way of the men's work to try and save the ship. Molly Brown tried to take practical action was shut down.

Look it's not right. Any of it. Men were often seen as expendable in war, disaster etc, but it's not because they were less important socially: because they were seen as stronger, more capable, stoic, brave, more intellectually rigorous- things women were not seen as being.

Yes and no Ivy. Mostly no if we take the biological angle. Put very basically; men are expendable, women are perishable. The plain fact is if all but one of the males of a group in a slow reproducing species dies, the species can survive, if all but one of the females of a group in a slow reproducing species dies, that species is extinct. This means in cold biological balance sheet terms women(and children) are of much more value reproductively.

Take the Titanic example and imagine a thought experiment where it contained the only humans left on the planet. If only men took to the lifeboats and only a couple of fertile age women joined them then game over human race.

We see throughout history when conflict arises the women are the more "valuable" resource and are treated as such. Not necessarily treated well of course, but seen as a more valuable resource and indeed often fought over as such. If an opposing group wins a battle they will usually kill the males of the vanquished, but take the women as "booty" and even celebrate the different approaches. Even a crime like rape, harshly punished by the vast majority of societies throughout history, is all too often ignored, even encouraged in war. Consider war crimes. Kill a load of men on the field of battle and it's heroic, but kill women and kids? When there is talk about "civilian casualties" that has been shorthand throughout history for non combatant women and kids and major frowned upon.

This is even reflected in our genetic heritage. Far more female genetic lines have survived down the near countless millennia than male. The human race has more "mothers" than "fathers".

But that's definitely the origin of it.

It's really not.

It's why women were seen as bad luck on ships for a long time; they just got in the way in the view of the sailors.

Again not really. The main reason women were viewed as "bad luck" was because of the real risk of at best distraction, at worst open mutiny among the men. QV that most famous of mutinies; the Bounty. Discord was brewing, but really kicked off when the sailors got busy with the native women. Similar superstitions grew up around women in the military. Hell, even gays in the military were viewed as potential distraction for the troops as the main practical issue. It is still a concern in modern militaries, though far less so and there is a lot of internal regulations to ward it off. In "ye olden days" it was just easier to put a superstition on things.

Again it all comes from a time where women were seen as weak and in need of protection

And this is the big problem I find with too much of modern "feminism". It's pushing more and more the notion of women as weak people in need of protection, just in a slightly different way to the old fashioned view.

ivytwine · 11-01-2017 09:56AM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes and no Ivy. Mostly no if we take the biological angle. Put very basically; men are expendable, women are perishable. The plain fact is if all but one of the males of a group in a slow reproducing species dies, the species can survive, if all but one of the females of a group in a slow reproducing species dies, that species is extinct. This means in cold biological balance sheet terms women(and children) are of much more value reproductively.

Take the Titanic example and imagine a thought experiment where it contained the only humans left on the planet. If only men took to the lifeboats and only a couple of fertile age women joined them then game over human race.

We see throughout history when conflict arises the women are the more "valuable" resource and are treated as such. Not necessarily treated well of course, but seen as a more valuable resource and indeed often fought over as such. If an opposing group wins a battle they will usually kill the males of the vanquished, but take the women as "booty" and even celebrate the different approaches. Even a crime like rape, harshly punished by the vast majority of societies throughout history, is all too often ignored, even encouraged in war. Consider war crimes. Kill a load of men on the field of battle and it's heroic, but kill women and kids? When there is talk about "civilian casualties" that has been shorthand throughout history for non combatant women and kids and major frowned upon.

This is even reflected in our genetic heritage. Far more female genetic lines have survived down the near countless millennia than male. The human race has more "mothers" than "fathers".

It's really not.

Again not really. The main reason women were viewed as "bad luck" was because of the real risk of at best distraction, at worst open mutiny among the men. QV that most famous of mutinies; the Bounty. Discord was brewing, but really kicked off when the sailors got busy with the native women. Similar superstitions grew up around women in the military. Hell, even gays in the military were viewed as potential distraction for the troops as the main practical issue. It is still a concern in modern militaries, though far less so and there is a lot of internal regulations to ward it off. In "ye olden days" it was just easier to put a superstition on things.

And this is the big problem I find with too much of modern "feminism". It's pushing more and more the notion of women as weak people in need of protection, just in a slightly different way to the old fashioned view.

Fair points. I really didn't consider the biological side of it at all to be honest. I think maybe historically women were considered to be vital as a group but not as individuals? And in fairness the same could have been said for men.

I'm totally with you on the current third-wave casting women as weak. I find it incredibly frustrating.

mzungu · 11-01-2017 10:29AM

Troll wrote: »

Trollish

It is reciprocated. I have often had a door held open for me and been told to go first etc.

hatrickpatrick · 11-01-2017 10:42AM

Widdershins wrote: »

I have an example of double standards for you. Harry Potter. Hermione punches Draco Malfoy in the face and she's a hero. Imagine if Harry punched Bellatrix LeStrange in the face? Or an unlikeable female character his own age, if there was one.

To be fair, I think even the most radical feminist would make an exception for Bellatrix Lestrange

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments