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

RabbleRouser2k

And now her and Calum are getting close and intimate-I would argue that that could be seen as him trying to 'justify' the assault-oh, it's affection.
(I imagine that this contributed to her being evicted-still, should had more of a 'what the hell were you thinking woman?' to it, mind. She certainly was booed as well).

No, Callum, it's not. I'm no fan of his, but I would certainly not stand idly by while someone sexually assaulted him.

Happens with women too-they continue a relationship despite abuse.

At least others are calling out her actions-but she should have been booted off of the show too. And yes, many are women who want to see her shoved off of the show.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/2645986/fans-accuse-chloe-ferry-of-sexually-assaulting-jedward-and-call-for-her-to-be-kicked-out-of-the-house-after-she-rubbed-her-naked-bum-on-them/

The_Kew_Tour

The one thing I have noticed is that on comments sections below her work more and more women are starting to see through her BS. Which is great.

HellSquirrel

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Now reverse the genders here-say that a man began rubbing his uncovered (as in not covered by a towel) penis on the back of an unsuspecting woman, then proceeded to say 'This is what you call a real man, this is is a real man's c***', while his friend was like 'get her Jimmy' (Jimmy is just a name I picked, don't exist), would the news be so quiet? Hell no!!!

While I agree with the general principle, there IS a difference between the rear and the genitalia in terms of rubbing it on people. If she'd rubbed her crotch against him while naked, that would be the equivalent of a man rubbing his penis on someone. She rubbed her arse on him; the male equivalent would be rubbing his arse against a woman.

The sense of repugnance generated are from different sources. The groin is sexual, the rear is more down to a repugnance of bodily functions with a side-dose of sexuality due to proximity.

As I said, I agree with the general principle, but switching body parts as well as gender undermined the argument.

TheDavester

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/style/voices/jedwards-john-was-sexually-assaulted-on-a-national-tv-show-so-why-does-no-one-care-35377587.html

I would very much wonder if LoN would even attempt to defend this 'CBB' assault. As Brian O'Reilly noted, if a man had done something similar, he would have been thrown off the show-career in ruins. This 'ladette' has no career, mind, but it's equally disturbing. So a casual sexual assault gets broadcast on live TV (apparently, according to comments on the article, there was another incident of a woman grabbing Calum Best's junk) and also we have a friend of hers 'egging her on'...coupled with this Chloe idiot saying 'This is what you call a real girl, that's a real woman's bum.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4131552/Chloe-Ferry-s-ample-assets-pop-dress-CBB.html#ixzz4WATQbltn

Now reverse the genders here-say that a man began rubbing his uncovered (as in not covered by a towel) penis on the back of an unsuspecting woman, then proceeded to say 'This is what you call a real man, this is is a real man's c***', while his friend was like 'get her Jimmy' (Jimmy is just a name I picked, don't exist), would the news be so quiet? Hell no!!! All hellfire would rain down upon him, he would have quickly shoved out of the show, apologies would be made, compensation would be paid, Heads would roll, and the house of Lords would get involved. And righly so.

Then we'd have the 'get her Jimmy' guy making apologies, apologising to the woman, and so on'.

But that would be if it were a man doing it to a woman...nothing is said if the genders are reversed. Says it all really.

Its like the time she was on the Anton Savage show , criticising the UCD 200 and when he brought up that men get photographed too like women and she kept denying it and its "not the same thing", it felt like he wanted to challenge her on it but he was told not to

RabbleRouser2k

TheDavester wrote: »

Its like the time she was on the Anton Savage show , criticising the UCD 200 and when he brought up that men get photographed too like women and she kept denying it and its "not the same thing", it felt like he wanted to challenge her on it but he was told not to

I imagine that may have been the impetus to him quitting-not being able to challenge guests on their crud.

Or being forced to pick those guests.

Special Circumstances

HellSquirrel wrote: »

The sense of repugnance generated are from different sources. The groin is sexual, the rear is more down to a repugnance of bodily functions with a side-dose of sexuality due to proximity.

The "rear" is not sexual? Somebody tell the fecking greeks!

RabbleRouser2k

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/north-america/girl-17-charged-with-raping-19yearold-man-at-knifepoint-35380700.html

The story alone is disturbing... the Indo's 'look how good she looks in makeup' images accompanying it is just...I'm dumbfounded, all I can say is 'wrong'.

Imagine em doing the same if it was a male who raped a female.

The_Kew_Tour

Well well well

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

TheDavester

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well well well

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

It's good on Examiners fb page she's getting criticised but in her twitter feed, she's getting all the blue haired gang and the odd male feminist sucking up to her

LuckyLloyd

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well well well

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

I'm not going to read that (ideally people wouldn't open her click bait and starve her of the attention seeking oxygen she desperately seeks) but I aleady know it will be some nonsense about how the world is deeply unbalanced against women, criticism against men doesn't have the same impact and any issues men suffer are because of the patriarchy anyway - which we need to accept before dismantling same. It's always the same rubbish over and over.

She's a parody of herself parroting idiotic fantasies. This thread serves to thoroughly disarm her bile.

Advbrd

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well well well

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

What a complete twat.

TheDavester

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'm not going to read that, but I aleady know it will be some nonsense about how the world is deeply unbalanced against women, criticism against men doesn't have the same impact and any issues men suffer are because of the patriarchy anyway - which we need to accept before dismantling same. It's always the same rubbish over and over.

She's a parody of herself parroting idiotic fantasies. This thread serves to thoroughly disarm her bile.

Nail on head - she's so predictable - honestly i don't know if she's a glorified troll or she actually believes half the stuff she spouts- actually she mentions a bit about men's mental health

TheDavester

I'd love to know her opinion on the jedward guy getting harassed

[Deleted User]

TheDavester wrote: »

I'd love to know her opinion on the jedward guy getting harassed

Even with the Jedward guy the only reason there's been any reaction is because he's an "innocent" type.

The_Kew_Tour

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I'm not going to read that (ideally people wouldn't open her click bait and starve her of the attention seeking oxygen she desperately seeks) but I aleady know it will be some nonsense about how the world is deeply unbalanced against women, criticism against men doesn't have the same impact and any issues men suffer are because of the patriarchy anyway - which we need to accept before dismantling same. It's always the same rubbish over and over.

She's a parody of herself parroting idiotic fantasies. This thread serves to thoroughly disarm her bile.

Yep stopped reading her stuff while back, not that I was avid reader just always worth a laugh.

But I read this cause I honestly thought at the end she say she was taking the pish

Goya

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Now reverse the genders here-say that a man began rubbing his uncovered (as in not covered by a towel) penis on the back of an unsuspecting woman, then proceeded to say 'This is what you call a real man, this is is a real man's c***'.

Chloe is vile and that behaviour was totally disgusting and it was harassment (and there certainly is a double standard) but why use the analogy of a man rubbing his penis on a woman's back? The mirror analogy would be a man rubbing his ass on a woman's head. And there would indeed still be uproar over that.

Goya

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well well well

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

Good heavens. :eek:

Irrespective of what any group's history is (and most men throughout history were not privileged!) it is still possible to be sexist/racist to them! Surely it's sexist/racist to claim people deserve to be treated differently according to their history?!

ivytwine

I really detest that "there's no reverse sexism" argument. Being part of a historically oppressed or even currently oppressed group is no excuse for being an asshole.

The Rape of Lucretia

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well well well

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

And she asks me out on a date !
Finally. I always new she had a thing for me.

The Rape of Lucretia

"This definition would seem to imply that either gender can be sexist but I’m going to make a rather bold assertion today. That isn’t true. It is impossible for women to be sexist towards men."

As she states, she makes the assertion that it isn't true that it is impossible for women to be sexist towards men.
So while she goes on her thought experiment to examine whether maybe it is impossible, she doesnt really believe its true.

Connacht2KXX

I posted this is another thread but I might as well stick it up here.

Sexism is an act, not a "complex ideology", as O'Neill claims. Islam is an ideology. Sexism is a by product of Islam. An act is still the same act regardless of what society you live in or your own identity. For example, drinking water is an act and remains the same act whether I drink water in Ireland, Cambodia or a communist nation. Me saying that "women should not be allowed to vote because they're stupid" is a sexist act and remains a sexist act, whether I'm a straight white male in England or a black woman in America. It's not too difficult to understand.

I can't believe this is regarded as journalism nowadays.

Ulysses Gaze

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well well well

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

namloc1980

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Well well well

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/louise-oneill-it-is-impossible-for-women-to-be-sexist-towards-men-440072.html

She's doing everything she can to justify her sexist attitude to men and her hatred of men. "It's not possible for me to be sexist so therefore I'm not". This article is the equivalent of the "I'm not a racist but....." line you see from bigots and racists.

retro:electro

So, going by her logic, can a privileged white woman be sexist towards a working class underprivileged black man? I'm guessing she'd still say no.

Ulysses Gaze

namloc1980 wrote: »

She's doing everything she can to justify her sexist attitude to men and her hatred of men. "It's not possible for me to be sexist so therefore I'm not". This article is the equivalent of the "I'm not a racist but....." line you see from bigots and racists.

Quite a catch she is....

retro:electro

Her last line, "it is clear that we do not live in a society that treats men and women in the same way". Yes Louise, and you are perpetuating that.

Goya

anna080 wrote: »

So, going by her logic, can a privileged white woman be sexist towards a working class underprivileged black man? I'm guessing she'd still say no.

Hmm, she might do some mental gymnastics due to him being black. It would be a bit of a dilemma for her I'd imagine.

retro:electro

Goya wrote: »

Hmm, she might do some mental gymnastics due to him being black. It would be a bit of a dilemma for her I'd imagine.

Maybe that'll form her article next week.

Arcade_Tryer

It's a good article.

Dictionary definitions are often a long way from explaining the actual meaning of many terms within different societal structures.

However, I disagree that reverse sexism does not exist. It simply does. In fact it has to. Because sexism is human nature. Sexism against men is not institutionalised within societal structures however. And that's the issue I think she is trying to highlight. Which is fair enough.

Sonics2k

Of course reverse sexism doesn't exist.

It's just sexism.