Louise O Neill on rape culture.

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Did she actually say that? At this stage I would not be surprised

Yup:

"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."

You can listen to the interview where she said the above here.


Re: the whole Vanessa Hudgens thing. She's a bad example for her to use anyway as Vanessa exploited her new found raunchy persona and went on to make Spring Breakers. In fact that's why suggestions were made that it was she herself that was behind the leak. Not saying she was but it's absurd to hold her up as an example of how a woman's career is destroyed due to public shaming. Sure Louise has many times endorsed Kim Kardashian in her articles and there's a woman who came to fame because of a sex tape.

If anything female sexuality is given mainstream platforms which male sexuality never would be. Basic Instinct is probably the highest grossing erotic thriller in recent times for example. Would a film about a man killing women at the point he reached climax even be seen as erotic? I doubt it. A man flashes his penis while he was being interviewed for the killings might get something of a different reaction.

Seriously though, Louise doesn't seem to have the ability to look at the larger picture. I seen her comment before on how women are under pressure to be slim in Hollywood and implied men were not but that's rubbish. I can remember the tabloids in the early 90's when Brando started putting on weight and they were just as vicious. They still do it do male stars today (1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc) but people like Louise will always ignore that as well, Mark Twain put it best when he said: "Misery loves company, but it hates competition."

But anyway, to get back to the 'It is impossible to be sexist towards men' thing... how about the following:

BA pays damages to passenger who was moved

A male passenger who claimed British Airways discriminated against him has received an apology and compensation from the airline.

Mirko Fischer, 33, was told to move after he swapped seats with his wife so she could sit next to the window and ended up sitting next to a boy he did not know.

BA's policy for unaccompanied minors stipulates that adult males travelling alone cannot sit next to children flying on their own.

The policy is currently under review, a BA spokesman said.

Mr Fischer was travelling from London to his home in Luxembourg when cabin crew intervened during the flight in April last year.

He accused staff of harassing him and claimed the policy contravened the Sex Discrimination Act.

Mr Fischer said he felt "embarrassed, humiliated and angry" while BA initially said when staff made the request for him to return to his allocated seat they genuinely believed he was travelling alone.

BA and Mr Fischer, who was represented by Daniel Tivadar, of 3 Hare Court, agreed an out-of-court settlement yesterday.

The airline is understood to have admitted sex discrimination in Mr Fischer's case and agreed to pay £750 in damages and £2,161 in costs.

Mr Fischer donated the damages payout and more than £2,000 of his own money to the child protection charities Kidscape and Orphans in the Wild, the BBC reported.

A BA spokesman said: "We are pleased to have settled this matter with Mr Fischer and are sorry for any difficulties which were caused."

£750 he was awarded. I would imagine if a woman was discriminated against on the basis that she was a woman, in equally humiliating fashion, there would be a few zeros on the end of that paltry pay out.

Or how about that in Ireland if two 15-year-olds have sex, the boy has just committed a criminal act but the girl will not.

The courts are extremely sexist in that men will get very harsh sentences quite often for crimes that were a woman to have done similar, she would generally walk free. One recent enough case was where three women stripped an 18-year-old, tied him to a chair, beat him, put cigarettes out on him and burnt his penis with a curling iron. All three women walked free with little more than slaps on the wrist for their actions. Can anyone honestly imagine three men doing similar to an 18-year-old girl and walking free? Of course not, and rightly so.

Or how about this kind of thing. Here we have feminists protesting in Argentina, spitting on and beating men publicly. No real outcry over it but yet imagine if men were ever to behave in such a way to women.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Yup:

Or how about that in Ireland if two 15-year-olds have sex, the boy has just committed a criminal act but the girl will not.

That's not quite the case. Ok, the age of consent here in Ireland is 17-across the board. (It used to be 15 for a boy, 17 for a girl. But that changed in 2006, after a whole sh!t ton of cases which just showed the inequality of the law...and that's not even mentioning where paedophiles were able to get their cases quashed with victims who were under 10).

A girl may not be convicted of having sex, if she is under 17, only on the basis of that supposed crime-ie having sex. Same with the guy-he also would not be convicted. That area of the law is in relation to having sex with someone who is over the age of 17-ie a child having sex with an older person.
But if the girl had been coercive, maybe even using force, then that would be grounds for a conviction. Also, if she had molested a significantly younger child, again, grounds for a conviction.
However, if one can, legitimately prove, that they believed the girl was over 17, and had sex with her thinking she was legal, and she had given consentl-then no conviction can be gained there either. (IF one met her in a pub or a club, one could safely assume she was 18 because a 17 year old, technically, wouldn't be in pub where alcohol is served.)

The criminal case in Donegal, where the boy was 15, occurred before the change in the age of consent-it was completely unfair, yes, but also an additional element not mentioned in that article was the girl stated it was non-consensual, that she was forced into having sex, out of fear. It's the Journal, however, they distort information all the time. Good old Dobby's website.
I will say guys get shafted all the time by laws, however.

And in more recent months, more is being done to quash the Romeo and Juliet laws. There have been claims that an adjustment to the laws are needed too-stating that 'if there is a two year gap' between the individuals, that then it isn't a conviction-think 17 year old guy, 15 year old girl, or vice versa.

Oh God...just listening to the Lon on Anton's program...dear sweet God, she makes me wanna punch a wall. I imagine Anton cut the interview show round the time he clearly, and incredulously, had to try not to call her an idiot for the 'male nude photos aren't as shameful' comment.
The idiocy from this wan.

Ah poor LoN, the twitterati are not agreeing with her on this one at all.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

As in, trolling ? A national newspaper publishing trolling ? Well I ask you.

Its like Dunphy on the Rte panel. Annoying and mostly wrong but he gets the viewers as a result. Although he is intelligent enough to know what he is doing.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, when she usually sounds out these opinions on people, she is in her echo chamber and will just get a load of 'Well said, Louise' backslaps. Occasionally you will get the odd person on fb that will challenge her, but it's rare enough and even then it's clear that she must then immediately block them as they almost never post again.

Her reply to this guy is a good example of the nonsense she would say if she were to reply to those who question her views:

Well, it finally happened... my brain just broke reading that...how in the name of God does she...I mean...oh my God.

So not only did she leap to a conclusion so large that the grand canyon would feel inadequate, she 'recycled' the same crap in her recent article that she said, what, 12 months ago? 2 years ago? So she cannot even be original any more?

'The white man...' sweet jesus. She reminds me of a joke Reggie Hunter tells about England/ Scotland/ Ireland (whereever he is performing that night, he adjusts for location) when one of his friends asks him 'Do they have white people over there?' he responds' all they have is white people, that's white people's Africa right there'...
This is Ireland, for our past generations, we were white. Geological location and all that. (I gotta be careful here too-I count anyone born here as Irish, anyone who has an Irish passport is Irish-I'm just talking about history and evolution. Same way 'Americans' are Native Americans-it's history and evolution).
Where is this oppression she's on about? And then her talking about 'we're tired-this has been going on for hundreds of years...' Really? You remember hundreds of years in the past, cos you claim to be 31. So is she vampire then? Cos she's sucking the life out of me, tbh.
It's no wonder so many prominent female individuals-Ronda Rousey springs to mind-don't want anything to do with feminism. It's all about weak, protected females. Not strong women. And I've known a fair share of strong, independent women.

py2006 wrote: »

Its like Dunphy on the Rte panel. Annoying and mostly wrong but he gets the viewers as a result. Although he is intelligent enough to know what he is doing.

I've always like Dunphy-yes he's completely wrong quite often- but when he shows his humanity, such as the Late Late Show tribute to Bill O'Herlihy, where he became visibly upset and started crying, I couldn't help but relate.
He's this sort of 'man's man' thing going on about him, but then he doesn't hide his emotions and doesn't pretend to be anything he isn't. Owns up to his many mistakes, too.

LoN doesn't have that strength-she won't find it in a book or ideology either. Has to come from within.
Strong folks don't play the victim-they just get on with life.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Imagen the other way around world news.... Men attack women for being Religious.....

It was repulsive to watch..I almost felt sick! Depraved behaviour :mad:


What's this about women with t-shirts with I'd Rather be a Rapist than Racist on them?

orubiru wrote: »

It goes further than that though.

With Feminist Theory they are actually trying to twist the definition of Sexism such that a woman cannot actually be Sexist.

They aren't really doing that to benefit society either. They are doing that to benefit themselves and to excuse bad behavior.

We have a word "Sexist" to describe prejudiced behavior that is based on gender.

Someone we describe as Sexist can be understood to be probably an unreasonable and irrational person and probably someone who may not treat you well because of your gender. So when we call someone sexist we are saying that they are not a good person.

Over time, as equality has become the norm in society, the label has carried more and more weight.

Louise is now trying to argue that the label "Sexist", and the connotations that come with the label, cannot possibly be applied to a woman.

So a man who treats women badly or unfairly gets a label that we can ALL understand quite easily. He is a sexist.

However, a woman who treats men badly or unfairly needs a different label.

She isn't "Sexist". She just doesn't treat men fairly, you know.

She isn't "Sexist". She just doesn't like men.

I can imagine that you would see this kind of thing in courtrooms quite a lot. The defendant will be accused of a crime that carries a particular penalty and the defense lawyer will try to argue that TECHNICALLY it's a lesser crime with a lesser penalty. So they are trying to do the same thing here.

To be branded "Sexist" is not a nice thing so Louise O'Neill needs something that allows her to behave exactly like a sexist man while avoiding the label that comes with that. She obviously thinks that this rationalization is the best way to do it.

I would argue that this just comes across really badly. Kind of like accepting that you've been a bit of an asshole but then also refusing to accept any kind of responsibility, or make any kind of apology, for it or even trying to justify it.

I am sure that this could be considered an abuse and/or gaslighting tactic.

Was watching a video a few nights back discussing and disproving Anita Sarkeesians gaming rants-and the person behind the vides (who has worked for 20 years on game titles for Disney and other companies) went on to discuss how essentially Sarkeesian's premise and ideology is demonstratably false. Easily done, and easily proven to be false.

If one wants to see the video, it's pretty interesting, and applicable to LoN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMaaDav46gM


Anyways, yes, she may claim 'it's impossible to be sexist towards men' but the police, courts, and law, does not support her ideology. Far from it.
In fact to go back to the racism angle-an Arsenal player is currently being investigated in the UK, for racial abuse, for referring to an Airline worker as a 'f***ing white b!tch'.
Now with LoN or Una-this 'can't happen' as racism is strictly a white person problem-and even then, more than likely 'a white man problem', and even more narrowly, a 'straight white male problem'.
But to say that one 'cannot feel like an outsider, or 'discriminated against' because of being white is a joke.
I remember, years ago, having a teacher (white and male) talk about how it changes one's perspective when they walk down Harlem and are the only white person there. Now imagine how one would feel if racial abuse was being hurled at them...
Now change the perspective again, and have it be the only guy in a room full of women-wait for the discourse and sexism to rear its ugly head.

So..what does Ireland's Premier ManHater have to say on the subject of the Womens Marches?

Totally opposed to them myself because of the scummy celeb mouthpieces and have been told I'm not a feminist, & have Internalized Misogyny.

Gas craic.