Louise O Neill on rape culture.

27-01-2017 10:47PM

py2006 wrote: »

Was it our pal Louise or the other one Una who said that the recent star wars movies were misogynistic because the non-main characters were mainly men? She couldn't focus on the wonderful female hero lead in both movies.

Twas Una iirc, and someone else came up with a statistic that in movies released in 2016, only 18percent of speech came from Women....like who the Feck has time to do that "research "

sid waddell · 27-01-2017 11:14PM

Widdershins wrote: »

So you're condescending to people who offend you because you think they are offended (permanently!) at someone else being offended about people being offended.

What do you get out of it? Keep trying! I don't feel ridiculed yet, as I'm a fairly confident woman who is firm in her convictions, unlike LON and her ilk who really are permanently offended and actually write about it for a living!

I'm not in the least offended by you or others here.

I'm rather amused, on the contrary, especially by posts like this:

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Mental illness.

The result of the U.S election and its impact on the vociferous left over the past few weeks has been nothing less than astonishing; certainly far faster than anything I've ever seen or expected. The projections; the dumbing down; the victimhood; weird celebrity meltdowns; wans on my facebook taking the hatred up tae 11; you want to look away, but it is impossible to do so. Suddenly, I know what this guy had to go though:

It's crazy house stuff, well and truly.

So, what happens when a mentally damaged, narcissistic minority group of people start losing their place in society, especially after they have gained prominent positions in that society? They become more aggressive and more feral. Lads might think I'm a bit bonkers here; mad pumpkin, but lets just say that if yous come across a Louise O Neil blue jelly in her hair type then yous should leg it the fùck out of there. These people and these SJW organizations (profits and SJWs are two ideals in complete conflict with each other) are becoming increasingly flat out insane. Anti facist and Pegida? Wtf is a lad thinking?

This won't end well. None of it will. It will end in depression and death for some. I guess that is why O Neill has gotten a thread this big: she's the epitome of that SJW, that dangerous person who is ruining the craic for everyone.

Stay the bloody fùck away from these people.

"Mental illness" is right, not quite in the way that poster intended, though.

mzungu · 27-01-2017 11:21PM

Sasha Wide Squash wrote: »

Twas Una iirc, and someone else came up with a statistic that in movies released in 2016, only 18percent of speech came from Women....like who the Feck has time to do that "research "

There is an article about it here: http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/gender-dialogue-27-2016-biggest-movies-women-feminism-yea-a7530796.html

Taking calculations from Captain America: Civil War, Finding Dory, Zootopia, The Jungle Book, The Secret Life of Pets, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, Rogue One, Deadpool, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, and Suicide Squad; Thomas looked at the percentage of dialogue spoken by women within those films.

And the result was, perhaps predictably, disappointing: including every speaking character featured within the list of films, only 27% of the dialogue was given to women. In fact, Rogue One actually represented the worst ratio of all ten films: only 9% of its speaking characters were female, with Jyn taking up 78% of their dialogue.

The only films which featured over/close to an equal split in dialogue were animated films Finding Dory and Zootopia, with 53% and 46% lines given to female characters respectively; which were also the only two films in which a female character spoke the highest percentage of dialogue. None of the films, however, featured a cast that was made up of 50% speaking, female parts.

homerjay2005 · 27-01-2017 11:27PM

sid waddell wrote: »

I'd say if Louise O'Neill ever logged in here, she'd get some laugh from the fact there are 181 pages of ranting about her by permanently offended men.

Not sure if many of them would get the irony, mind.

It's like a snowflakes' convention in here.

is that you Louise?

while she has her band of loyal female followers(and gullible men too for that matter), theres a significant portion of females that are very very content in their lives and see themselves as not only being treated fairly and equally, but would be sickened at the notion that somebody would try to brainwash them into believing they are second class citizens.

Widdershins · 27-01-2017 11:33PM

sid waddell wrote: »

I'm not in the least offended by you or others here.

I'm rather amused, on the contrary, especially by posts like this:

"Mental illness" is right, not quite in the way that poster intended, though.

Having been verbally attacked by a ravening pack of so called activists for womens rights (luckily only on social media) I think the post was both amusing and accurate. Maybe you just haven't had any braying bitches on your case for disagreeing with them. Yes we know they all have a mental illness because they usually let you know. I have an anxiety disorder and don't like being savaged by frothing feminazis. I'm allowed to comment on that kind of thing on Boards the same as you're allowed to come along and be ''condescending and ridiculing''. I just don't 'get' why you want to. Maybe LON is a personal friend of yours?

Sand · 27-01-2017 11:53PM

orubiru wrote: »

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.

From what I can see LON lacks empathy. She is well able to express her own feelings and her own opinion, but other people are a mystery to her, especially men. So she vomits up her own childish primal screams in reactions to fake news but doesn't think sexism affects men because she doesn't have the slightest idea how men think or feel outside of the Women's Studies workshop she attended. They are labels, not people.

Its the same when I read FWPF writers describing how its so terrible for women walking home late at night, tense, constantly fearing attack, wary of groups of drunken men. It never occurs to them that they are describing the experience of most men who are 80% of the targets of violent attacks. They lack empathy - the understand their own fears and concerns, but cant imagine anyone who is not like them feeling the same. The fear of attack they describe is simply the price of being free to go out and about late at night without some male relative to chaperone. Men in patriarchal society don't permit female relatives to wander out at night alone. Not even in daytime in the worst of them. Men can, could, do and had to take care of themselves - patriarchal societies often coexisting with violent societies, maybe a cause, maybe a reaction.

Women have that freedom now in the western world, and if anything they are more protected by whatever is left of social customs about not hitting girls (4 men being attacked for every woman) but FWPFs just lack the empathy to grasp that what they are experiencing now is what men have always felt. They seem to think that being a man is wandering around with a force-field constantly active where no physical or emotional attack can really hurt you. Its bull****, but these people simply lack the emotional intelligence to grasp it. Its ironic, given they would likely be the first to claim some secret feminine ability to divine the world through the eyes of others.

goose2005 · 28-01-2017 12:02AM

Special Circumstances wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how the "celebrities against trump" thing is working out in the areas the really backed Trump.
OK we get the impression that celebrities are demigods in the US... but at what point do the rust belters or whoever start thinking "do you know what, who the F**K are you to tell me I'm deplorable, all I want is the chance to have a reasonable standard of living for an honest days work, f**k you and your celebrity friends"

About that:

http://www.theonion.com/article/dnc-aiming-reconnect-working-class-americans-new-h-54707

user2011 · 28-01-2017 12:27AM

Sand wrote: »

From what I can see LON lacks empathy. She is well able to express her own feelings and her own opinion, but other people are a mystery to her, especially men. So she vomits up her own childish primal screams in reactions to fake news but doesn't think sexism affects men because she doesn't have the slightest idea how men think or feel outside of the Women's Studies workshop she attended. They are labels, not people.

Its the same when I read FWPF writers describing how its so terrible for women walking home late at night, tense, constantly fearing attack, wary of groups of drunken men. It never occurs to them that they are describing the experience of most men who are 80% of the targets of violent attacks. They lack empathy - the understand their own fears and concerns, but cant imagine anyone who is not like them feeling the same. The fear of attack they describe is simply the price of being free to go out and about late at night without some male relative to chaperone. Men in patriarchal society don't permit female relatives to wander out at night alone. Not even in daytime in the worst of them. Men can, could, do and had to take care of themselves - patriarchal societies often coexisting with violent societies, maybe a cause, maybe a reaction.

Women have that freedom now in the western world, and if anything they are more protected by whatever is left of social customs about not hitting girls (4 men being attacked for every woman) but FWPFs just lack the empathy to grasp that what they are experiencing now is what men have always felt. They seem to think that being a man is wandering around with a force-field constantly active where no physical or emotional attack can really hurt you. Its bull****, but these people simply lack the emotional intelligence to grasp it. Its ironic, given they would likely be the first to claim some secret feminine ability to divine the world through the eyes of others.

Are these men fearing groups of drunken women, being attacked by drunken women?

I'm surprised this thread is still going, but your argument has a flaw, her example is of the opposite sex, men on women, yours without you saying is of the same sex, Men on Men? Not very comparative.

To be clear, I don't agree with this yoke (L'ON). Lol

red ears · 28-01-2017 12:31AM

goose2005 wrote: »

About that:

http://www.theonion.com/article/dnc-aiming-reconnect-working-class-americans-new-h-54707

They haven't got a clue if they think Lena Dunham is going to resonate with rural trump voters

red ears · 28-01-2017 12:41AM

user2011 wrote: »

Are these men fearing groups of drunken women, being attacked by drunken women?

I'm surprised this thread is still going, but your argument has a flaw, her example is of the opposite sex, men on women, yours without you saying is of the same sex, Men on Men? Not very comparative.

To be clear, I don't agree with this yoke (L'ON). Lol

What does it matter, getting attacked is getting attacked, fear is fear, we are individuals. Louise seems to think only women are worried late at night.

DredFX · 28-01-2017 12:21PM

red ears wrote: »

They haven't got a clue if they think Lena Dunham is going to resonate with rural trump voters

Implying she can resonate with anyone aside from twenty-five-year-old yuppies.

Wibbs · 28-01-2017 01:50PM

Sand wrote: »

From what I can see LON lacks empathy. She is well able to express her own feelings and her own opinion, but other people are a mystery to her, especially men. So she vomits up her own childish primal screams in reactions to fake news but doesn't think sexism affects men because she doesn't have the slightest idea how men think or feel outside of the Women's Studies workshop she attended. They are labels, not people.

Its the same when I read FWPF writers describing how its so terrible for women walking home late at night, tense, constantly fearing attack, wary of groups of drunken men. It never occurs to them that they are describing the experience of most men who are 80% of the targets of violent attacks. They lack empathy - the understand their own fears and concerns, but cant imagine anyone who is not like them feeling the same.

It's an example of the towering levels of narcissism usually and particularly found in online and media "feminists". Indeed narcissism is damn near a given in the species. It's present in enough amounts in everyday but overly invested Facebook/twitter/snapchat types, particularly in white middle class women*, but finds its full zenith in media "feminists". The only insight they seek is their own, yet never as a route to true self examination(and why therapy is often a waste for the type IME). It nearly always results in a childish solipsism encouraged by family and society(and made nuclear powered by social media echo chambers). More, this can even show as a "proof" against their persecution complexes as they are actually treated as special cases(and often because of their gender), because they've been allowed, nay encouraged to be crippling narcissists. And it's getting worse IMH, even among the average person. That hoary Oprah simplistic of "love yourself/greatest love of all" nonsense can be taken to extremes and too often is. "Get over yourself" while equally simplistic makes for a better mantra IMH.

sid waddell wrote: »

Which is why I've used the term ironically here in a ridiculing, condescending sort of way.

I see your grasp of the concept of irony is a little better than O'Neill's, but not by much so that's hardly a winning endorsement considering the low bar set. Plus if you have to take pains to explain what you're doing…

*It has been said that autism is akin to the male mind in extremis, I would say that narcissism is akin to the female mind in extremis. I would further contend that the online world often does no favours for either.

deaddonkey15 · 28-01-2017 02:18PM

I'm surprised LON has had nothing to say on the gang rape in Sweden that was streamed live on Facebook last week, though I suspect that it may have something to do with the fact that the perpetrators were brown skinned immigrants and not white, privileged men. In fact many media outlets just reported them as men and said nothing of the fact that they were immigrants.

Widdershins · 28-01-2017 02:31PM

Wibbs wrote: »

It's an example of the towering levels of narcissism usually and particularly found in online and media "feminists". Indeed narcissism is damn near a given in the species. It's present in enough amounts in everyday but overly invested Facebook/twitter/snapchat types, particularly in white middle class women*, but finds its full zenith in media "feminists". The only insight they seek is their own, yet never as a route to true self examination(and why therapy is often a waste for the type IME). It nearly always results in a childish solipsism encouraged by family and society(and made nuclear powered by social media echo chambers). More, this can even show as a "proof" against their persecution complexes as they are actually treated as special cases(and often because of their gender), because they've been allowed, nay encouraged to be crippling narcissists. And it's getting worse IMH, even among the average person. That hoary Oprah simplistic of "love yourself/greatest love of all" nonsense can be taken to extremes and too often is. "Get over yourself" while equally simplistic makes for a better mantra IMH.

I see your grasp of the concept of irony is a little better than O'Neill's, but not by much so that's hardly a winning endorsement considering the low bar set. Plus if you have to take pains to explain what you're doing…

*It has been said that autism is akin to the male mind in extremis, I would say that narcissism is akin to the female mind in extremis. I would further contend that the online world often does no favours for either.

Maybe Sid was really being very nuanced.

Who's your signature quote from, Wibbs? It's interesting.

hatrickpatrick · 28-01-2017 07:21PM

Today in the IT's radfem propaganda: justifying drinking and taking drugs while pregnant.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/blame-and-shame-about-drinking-while-pregnant-shows-distrust-of-women-1.2942987

I'm sorry but I'd expect even most feminists to admit that this crosses the line.

If drinking while pregnant is justified under bodily autonomy, then by extension shouldn't drinking and driving fall under the same standard? Madness and muppetry.

RabbleRouser2k · 28-01-2017 07:23PM

ivytwine wrote: »

Historically there were tons but most have been dismantled at this point, bar a few legacy ones like the 8th Amendment. I note LON did not mention the family court, or that until recently unmarried fathers had no automatic right to be included on birth certs.

I will say that those are primarily cancers that affect women, and there are prostrate screening programmes etc. I do think 2 weeks leave is nothing, but physically women do need a lengthier time. Emotionally both parents need the 6 months I think.

Movember has been brilliant for men, and I'd like to see more of that for men, and I'll support it as the day is long.

Sadly, I've seen folks (yes, women) complaining about the Movember thing, and how 'women have to suffer'...it's a moustache/ beard. It's only there for a month-how is that suffering?

jameorahiely · 28-01-2017 07:30PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Today in the IT's radfem propaganda: justifying drinking and taking drugs while pregnant.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/blame-and-shame-about-drinking-while-pregnant-shows-distrust-of-women-1.2942987

I'm sorry but I'd expect even most feminists to admit that this crosses the line.

If drinking while pregnant is justified under bodily autonomy, then by extension shouldn't drinking and driving fall under the same standard? Madness and muppetry.

Ireland has the highest rate of pregnant drinkers in the world. Not suprising when experts on this site have been saying 8 drinks/ week is grand during pregnancy is grand and the femimists supporting drinking as has been seen on a certain other threads here on boards. I wonder is it linked to the high rates of ADHD in children here we see.

Widdershins · 28-01-2017 07:32PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Today in the IT's radfem propaganda: justifying drinking and taking drugs while pregnant.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/blame-and-shame-about-drinking-while-pregnant-shows-distrust-of-women-1.2942987

I'm sorry but I'd expect even most feminists to admit that this crosses the line.

If drinking while pregnant is justified under bodily autonomy, then by extension shouldn't drinking and driving fall under the same standard? Madness and muppetry.

Right, so she's a sort of Freeman Movement Feminist?

I jumped the gun a bit there. ''In one recent case, a woman lost custody of her son after she took two halves of a Valium tablet on separate occasions while pregnant.''. I don't know much about Valium but I thought it was only taken in dire circumstances. Maybe she was having an extremely difficult time. I wonder if she was assessed..I doubt it happened that her children were taken purely on the strength of the Valium thing, but if so, maybe the writer has a point.

ivytwine · 28-01-2017 07:40PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Sadly, I've seen folks (yes, women) complaining about the Movember thing, and how 'women have to suffer'...it's a moustache/ beard. It's only there for a month-how is that suffering?

A friend of mine who was doing Movember posted something about some idiot who was complaining about it. The amount of girls (including myself) defending it would have given you hope!

RabbleRouser2k · 28-01-2017 07:40PM

py2006 wrote: »

Was it our pal Louise or the other one Una who said that the recent star wars movies were misogynistic because the non-main characters were mainly men? She couldn't focus on the wonderful female hero lead in both movies.

Yep, it was good aul Una.

Probably wouldn't even watch the movie without a woman being in it.

RabbleRouser2k · 28-01-2017 07:49PM

goose2005 wrote: »

About that:

http://www.theonion.com/article/dnc-aiming-reconnect-working-class-americans-new-h-54707

I am slightly worried that, considering Dunham's craziness, I believed that was real for far longer than I would have liked. A good 60 seconds at least.

ivytwine · 28-01-2017 07:50PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Today in the IT's radfem propaganda: justifying drinking and taking drugs while pregnant.

http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/blame-and-shame-about-drinking-while-pregnant-shows-distrust-of-women-1.2942987

I'm sorry but I'd expect even most feminists to admit that this crosses the line.

If drinking while pregnant is justified under bodily autonomy, then by extension shouldn't drinking and driving fall under the same standard? Madness and muppetry.

Actually I don't think that's the worst, that article. She mentions the amount of contradictory advice women are given, which is plain ridiculous. And seeing as doctors can't make up their minds on what's safe or not, the scaremongering that goes on is unnecessary. Most women- and people!- have some cop on.

But let's face it. It's not the one glass of wine mothers doctors are talking about. Their babies aren't gonna get FFA. These *generally* are the babies born to vulnerable people at the bottom of society's rung, with drug/alcohol problems. A group I find that a lot of media people tend to ignore in debates on gender (witness: consent classes are always a third level issue, because everyone goes to university).

Sand · 28-01-2017 07:53PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yep, it was good aul Una.

Probably wouldn't even watch the movie without a woman being in it.

Not sure how Una can complain about a film where the female lead is inexplicably more powerful and more knowledgeable than any other character in the entire series. The character of Rey in that film is a raging Mary Sue. I presume the next movie will be where she takes on Luke Skywalker as her apprentice.

RabbleRouser2k · 28-01-2017 08:04PM

Widdershins wrote: »

Right, so she's a sort of Freeman Movement Feminist?

I jumped the gun a bit there. ''In one recent case, a woman lost custody of her son after she took two halves of a Valium tablet on separate occasions while pregnant.''. I don't know much about Valium but I thought it was only taken in dire circumstances. Maybe she was having an extremely difficult time. I wonder if she was assessed..I doubt it happened that her children were taken purely on the strength of the Valium thing, but if so, maybe the writer has a point.

This has been ongoing for a while now-feminists trying to defend the 'drinking while pregnant/ smoking while pregnant'. I even had a male feminist lecturer (yeah, I mention him a few times) speak about how a father took his wife to court because she was drinking/ smoking while pregnant-and how this essentially makes women 'incubators' rather than humans. Also knew a woman who spoke, with pride, how she was 'very good' during her second pregnancy, and only smoked 'one cigarette a day'. Her kid was born with a whole host of issues, including breathing problems, retaining fluid (he was 11 pounds at birth) and is in classes for special needs.
And yeah, I doubt she didn't drink either.

I see a whole host of women do that, and I am disgusted. The amount of women who put themselves through hell to have a baby, who don't smoke,drink etc...and yet cannot have a child-yet others take the ability so haphazardly, smoking, drinking, and with little regard for the kids life, or the problems they will inherit. I'm sorry, but when one has to think about two people, and during a pregnancy, usually the kid is wanted, you just have to be a little unselfish.

RabbleRouser2k · 28-01-2017 08:08PM

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/its-always-caucasian-people-who-say-they-dont-see-race-441145.html

I struggled, I'll admit, I just breezed through this. Cos critics don't matter, in LoN's world, even those who hate the films she likes...

And then Alison Spittle put this up, talking about CBB evictee Jessica Cunningham (the one urging her friend on to sexually assault one half of Jedward)...

https://twitter.com/AlisonSpittle/status/825096070275407872

ivytwine · 28-01-2017 08:09PM

Sand wrote: »

Not sure how Una can complain about a film where the female lead is inexplicably more powerful and more knowledgeable than any other character in the entire series. The character of Rey in that film is a raging Mary Sue. I presume the next movie will be where she takes on Luke Skywalker as her apprentice.

Honestly I do understand how representation matters. Growing up I had a fair amount of good female role models on TV and possibly more importantly in music. BUT there's a fine line between representation and tokenism and it's leaning a bit the other way.

And for me, despite being a woman, I have found that stories of men can speak just as deeply to me. I watched Whiplash recently and having a background in music, that story and that lead character spoke to me far more than a thousand new Star Wars flicks. I dunno, I guess it's almost like we're all human beings or something?

I hate proscribing what anyone reads, it's not unfeminist of someone to want to spend a year reading James Patterson. To me reading and music (and watching movies and TV to a lesser extent) is such a deeply personal thing that I feel quite resentful of anyone telling me what I should or shouldn't consume. I also am quite generally colour/gender blind when it comes to these things. I don't really care about the author, and proper book fans don't either.

Louise O'Neill at least should know as a fiction writer that writing is a process that comes from deep within. You don't set out to write something to tick all the boxes, you tell the story that's burning in you to be told. Any attempt at changing it to fit in with other people's opinions is just art by committee.

As for Eileen Battersby's list... well damn it. Some woman write something as perfectly prescient and terrifying as 1984 and off it goes into the record books. I would argue she could have bumped it into 7 books and put Margaret Attwood's The Handmaid's Tale in there, it's a fantastic book.

ivytwine · 28-01-2017 08:10PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

This has been ongoing for a while now-feminists trying to defend the 'drinking while pregnant/ smoking while pregnant'. I even had a male feminist lecturer (yeah, I mention him a few times) speak about how a father took his wife to court because she was drinking/ smoking while pregnant-and how this essentially makes women 'incubators' rather than humans. Also knew a woman who spoke, with pride, how she was 'very good' during her second pregnancy, and only smoked 'one cigarette a day'. Her kid was born with a whole host of issues, including breathing problems, retaining fluid (he was 11 pounds at birth) and is in classes for special needs.
And yeah, I doubt she didn't drink either.

I see a whole host of women do that, and I am disgusted. The amount of women who put themselves through hell to have a baby, who don't smoke,drink etc...and yet cannot have a child-yet others take the ability so haphazardly, smoking, drinking, and with little regard for the kids life, or the problems they will inherit. I'm sorry, but when one has to think about two people, and during a pregnancy, usually the kid is wanted, you just have to be a little unselfish.

Jesus I know no-one like that thankfully. Selfish assholes.

Widdershins · 28-01-2017 08:11PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

This has been ongoing for a while now-feminists trying to defend the 'drinking while pregnant/ smoking while pregnant'. I even had a male feminist lecturer (yeah, I mention him a few times) speak about how a father took his wife to court because she was drinking/ smoking while pregnant-and how this essentially makes women 'incubators' rather than humans. Also knew a woman who spoke, with pride, how she was 'very good' during her second pregnancy, and only smoked 'one cigarette a day'. Her kid was born with a whole host of issues, including breathing problems, retaining fluid (he was 11 pounds at birth) and is in classes for special needs.
And yeah, I doubt she didn't drink either.

I see a whole host of women do that, and I am disgusted. The amount of women who put themselves through hell to have a baby, who don't smoke,drink etc...and yet cannot have a child-yet others take the ability so haphazardly, smoking, drinking, and with little regard for the kids life, or the problems they will inherit. I'm sorry, but when one has to think about two people, and during a pregnancy, usually the kid is wanted, you just have to be a little unselfish.

Well, you don't have bodily autonomy when pregnant, whether they like it or not. I say that as someone who is pro choice, so that might sound hypocritical, but I think if you choose to keep a pregnancy you then have to do your best for it within your own limitations and circumstances. (Telling other women what they Have To Do!OMG!)

If they don't want that they should try to avoid pregnancy.

That's my view, anyway.

RabbleRouser2k · 28-01-2017 08:13PM

ivytwine wrote: »

Honestly I do understand how representation matters. Growing up I had a fair amount of good female role models on TV and possibly more importantly in music. BUT there's a fine line between representation and tokenism and it's leaning a bit the other way.

And for me, despite being a woman, I have found that stories of men can speak just as deeply to me. I watched Whiplash recently and having a background in music, that story and that lead character spoke to me far more than a thousand new Star Wars flicks. I dunno, I guess it's almost like we're all human beings or something?

I hate proscribing what anyone reads, it's not unfeminist of someone to want to spend a year reading James Patterson. To me reading and music (and watching movies and TV to a lesser extent) is such a deeply personal thing that I feel quite resentful of anyone telling me what I should or shouldn't consume. I also am quite generally colour/gender blind when it comes to these things. I don't really care about the author, and proper book fans don't either.

Louise O'Neill at least should know as a fiction writer that writing is a process that comes from deep within. You don't set out to write something to tick all the boxes, you tell the story that's burning in you to be told. Any attempt at changing it to fit in with other people's opinions is just art by committee.

As for Eileen Battersby's list... well damn it. Some woman write something as perfectly prescient and terrifying as 1984 and off it goes into the record books. I would argue she could have bumped it into 7 books and put Margaret Attwood's The Handmaid's Tale in there, it's a fantastic book.

Plus a friend of mine read LoN's 'Only Ever Yours' book-and called it a 'total ripoff of the Handmaid's tale' (Yeah, she's a female friend of mine-just friends tho, gives me good advice on dating other girls tho) but nowhere near as good. Got bored, found it meh-just put it down after a while. She was the target audience at the time too.

ivytwine · 28-01-2017 08:15PM

Actually slightly off topic, whatever about light alcohol consumption. Anyone who continues to smoke, and therefore support one of the most unethical, ruthlessly capitalistic industries on the planet, while pontificating on any social justice issue drops quite a few points in my estimation.

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments