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

Widdershins

What kind of women in film do LON and co. appreciate? Anyone know?

jameorahiely

osarusan wrote: »

What line was crossed?

What I took from that article was - don't lament pregnant Irish women drinking their heads off when we don't actually know if that is the case, and also, there is conflicting research as to the impact that moderate drinking has on the foetus.

I don't see any reference to bodily autonomy (my body my choice, I have the right to drink whenever I want, etc) at all - I don't really see where you got that from at all.

Your reading of and reaction to the article baffles me really.

Careful now
Official guidelines issued by the British Medical Association says mothers-to-be-should be referred to as 'pregnant people'
The move aims to avoid offending and alienating transgender parents

RabbleRouser2k

Oh completely-and it's bizare, too, to say the least. They brag about 'we can have children, men cannot-we are the mothers'... but then there are many women who can't have children, due to conditions like Mrkh, to name a few.

Whereas men are, biologically, roughly 15 percent stronger. But we don't brag about it, and if we did, see how long we would have to wait until we get the 'male chauvinist pig' thing-whilst if a woman says it, she's 'empowered'.

Twitter has been going crazy, again, over this women's march. IF you have a differing opinion, then you are suddenly Hitler reborn.
Personally, I found it absolutely heinous the reactions made to anyone who even dared to question the motives of the march.
Piers Morgan (yesh, I cannot stand him either) criticised it, and Ewan McGregor fled-which in all honesty, came across as a bullying tactic to try and get Morgan fired. I'd like to see Morgan panhandling on the streets while someone else made tons of money doing his job, but I would rather see Morgan get himself fired, for a similar stunt to either the phone hacking or the false UK solders images. Not because Ewan became a bully and tried to get him fired.
Couple that with Susanne Reid and her 'you do know you sit next to a feminist every day, right?' comment-and that felt, to me like, 'be silent, lest you offend the feminist Gods'. Any kinds of questions somehow offended the sensitive poor folks who's feelings needed a hug.

Certain members of the march actually taped tampons and menstrual pads to the manhattan wall.A far, far more positive use of those items would be donating them to a homeless shelter for those homeless women who don't have access to feminine hygiene products. Instead they are more rubbish for the street cleaners to clean up. Like all those signs strewn on the streets.

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Oh completely-and it's bizare, too, to say the least. They brag about 'we can have children, men cannot-we are the mothers'... but then there are many women who can't have children, due to conditions like Mrkh, to name a few.

Whereas men are, biologically, roughly 15 percent stronger. But we don't brag about it, and if we did, see how long we would have to wait until we get the 'male chauvinist pig' thing-whilst if a woman says it, she's 'empowered'.

Twitter has been going crazy, again, over this women's march. IF you have a differing opinion, then you are suddenly Hitler reborn.
Personally, I found it absolutely heinous the reactions made to anyone who even dared to question the motives of the march.
Piers Morgan (yesh, I cannot stand him either) criticised it, and Ewan McGregor fled-which in all honesty, came across as a bullying tactic to try and get Morgan fired. I'd like to see Morgan panhandling on the streets while someone else made tons of money doing his job, but I would rather see Morgan get himself fired, for a similar stunt to either the phone hacking or the false UK solders images. Not because Ewan became a bully and tried to get him fired.
Couple that with Susanne Reid and her 'you do know you sit next to a feminist every day, right?' comment-and that felt, to me like, 'be silent, lest you offend the feminist Gods'. Any kinds of questions somehow offended the sensitive poor folks who's feelings needed a hug.

Certain members of the march actually taped tampons and menstrual pads to the manhattan wall.A far, far more positive use of those items would be donating them to a homeless shelter for those homeless women who don't have access to feminine hygiene products. Instead they are more rubbish for the street cleaners to clean up. Like all those signs strewn on the streets.

Piers Morgan only said the marches attracted rabid feminists and vacuous people. It's true.There's plenty of evidence. He didn't say all involved were ether of the above.

I didn't know about the tampon thing. There are schemes for donating them to impoverished girls in India. That was a waste.

RabbleRouser2k

Widdershins wrote: »

What kind of women in film do LON and co. appreciate? Anyone know?

Whiny, blande bleach blonde girls in terrible movies-see the movie she was 'championing' with White Girl. The actress cannot act, the role is more debauchery and 'shock' for the sake of shock.
Or same story with 'Striking Out'-the bland, 'powerful' woman who don't need no man. Those are two films and shows LoN liked-yet imdb hated White Girl.

And many others hated Striking Out-it's not because it's women leads, it's because they are bland leads.

And some of the reviews for WG summed it up perfectly-'White Girl is about being white, and a girl'. Ya know, the very things LoN champions...while claiming not to.

RabbleRouser2k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OdV7DJzDK0

A nice little discussion of LoN's 'REverse sexism' article.

RabbleRouser2k

Widdershins wrote: »

Piers Morgan only said the marches attracted rabid feminists and vacuous people. It's true.There's plenty of evidence. He didn't say all involved were ether of the above.

I didn't know about the tampon thing. There are schemes for donating them to impoverished girls in India. That was a waste.

Yeah, taped messages to em like 'Imagine if men were as disgusted by rape as they are by periods'...which is just a ridiculous statement.

RabbleRouser2k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrSSiWF4obE

Okay, this is really interesting to me-and shows a deep, disgusting element to LoN's mentality.

Fast forward to the 9 minute 30 second mark-the reviewer notes how LoN includes a rape attempt, by the female protagonist on a male friend. IT's a really interesting comment review of a sequence in the book, and essentially undermines how blinkered and blind LoN is to issues affecting men.

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Whiny, blande bleach blonde girls in terrible movies-see the movie she was 'championing' with White Girl. The actress cannot act, the role is more debauchery and 'shock' for the sake of shock.
Or same story with 'Striking Out'-the bland, 'powerful' woman who don't need no man. Those are two films and shows LoN liked-yet imdb hated White Girl.

And many others hated Striking Out-it's not because it's women leads, it's because they are bland leads.

And some of the reviews for WG summed it up perfectly-'White Girl is about being white, and a girl'. Ya know, the very things LoN champions...while claiming not to.

How predictable. I know there's a focus on literature that's primarily about 'issues' now. Be they womens' issues or trans gender peoples issues or whatever. A couple of friends recently shared their lists of gender/other issue fiction. Most of it was dull.
I think IvyTwine made a good comment about the creative process and how and why good stories are written. I don't think bodging a story around the theme of a cause works very well. The story is then secondary to the 'issue'. It seems like the same thing with films. The message is more important than the quality of the acting and storyline.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OdV7DJzDK0

A nice little discussion of LoN's 'REverse sexism' article.

I'm going to watch this in full when I can. I just listened to a couple of minutes, with Louise O'Neill at the beginning. I do sort of agree in one way, but it's not anything new to say girls shouldn't feel they have to be persuaded. It's fine to want sex and let it be known. I dn't think anyone ever told me that, and I come from a fairly fusty family, but I managed to work that out for myself and not have any hang ups. I can't see that there's some big problem for girls there.
I don't think anyone is actually telling girls that. Sometimes it's nice to be persuaded, in the sense of a seduction. There's willing persuasion. She just sort of sucks the fun out of everything

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, taped messages to em like 'Imagine if men were as disgusted by rape as they are by periods'...which is just a ridiculous statement.

Oh, I have seen that already in the form of a meme on Facebook. I have all the crazies on Facebook...

I multiquoted..:D

ivytwine

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Yeah, taped messages to em like 'Imagine if men were as disgusted by rape as they are by periods'...which is just a ridiculous statement.

I can't multiquote bwhahaha

I wonder if anyone saying this has actually dated a man. Because the only people in my experience who have been disgusted by periods are boys, and weirdo man-boys like Donald Trump.

ivytwine

Widdershins wrote: »

How predictable. I know there's a focus on literature that's primarily about 'issues' now. Be they womens' issues or trans gender peoples issues or whatever. A couple of friends recently shared their lists of gender/other issue fiction. Most of it was dull.
I think IvyTwine made a good comment about the creative process and how and why good stories are written. I don't think bodging a story around the theme of a cause works very well. The story is then secondary to the 'issue'. It seems like the same thing with films. The message is more important than the quality of the acting and storyline.

it's not like you can't write interesting stuff about racism, sexual violence or LGBT issues. But shoehorning these things in just leads to inauthentic art. Something Hollywood is a master at.

Back to Whiplash, Fletcher uses sexist and homophobic language to belittle his charges, and I'm sure people were frothing at the mouth at the fact that he never got pulled up over any of it (that we saw anyway). But his bad behaviour is condemned by the effect we see it having on the lead character. Subtlety is key with this stuff.

I think life is far too short to limit your art consumption in anyway. I won't read a mediocre book just because it's by a woman. I still read a lot of female authors, and having read Americanah I actually will try and read more African authors, because it's a gap in my knowledge and I find the setting interesting.

I didn't watch Striking Out but I know legal people who thought it was extremely sloppily researched.

Widdershins wrote: »

I'm going to watch this in full when I can. I just listened to a couple of minutes, with Louise O'Neill at the beginning. I do sort of agree in one way, but it's not anything new to say girls shouldn't feel they have to be persuaded. It's fine to want sex and let it be known. I dn't think anyone ever told me that, and I come from a fairly fusty family, but I managed to work that out for myself and not have any hang ups. I can't see that there's some big problem for girls there.
I don't think anyone is actually telling girls that. Sometimes it's nice to be persuaded, in the sense of a seduction. There's willing persuasion. She just sort of sucks the fun out of everything.

I multiquoted..:D

This is it. It's similar as that "oh I really shouldn't have that biscuit" when you actually know you're going to have it and probably three more. There's fun in being a bit naughty and transgressive. Obviously sex can be fraught but I think most women have it sussed as you say.

That book review RabbleRouser posted is extremely interesting. I am of a similar mindset to her, and that scene she describes sounds nasty. It could have actually been a good ground for the heroine to gain some insight, to think she was making someone else uncomfortable and that because you're suffering, you shouldn't make someone else suffer.

Sand

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Fast forward to the 9 minute 30 second mark-the reviewer notes how LoN includes a rape attempt, by the female protagonist on a male friend. IT's a really interesting comment review of a sequence in the book, and essentially undermines how blinkered and blind LoN is to issues affecting men.

I haven't read the book (and tbh, I'm not going to) but I'd wonder if LON knowingly inserted that scene because it was a consent issue. Most crime stories start with some terrible crime being committed - it doesn't mean the author approves of the crime.

You'd need to know if the character is ever confronted with what they did, or if the impact on the victim is ever explored. In a crime novel for example, the criminal is hunted and condemned and some form of justice is served. From the reviewer, her interpretation of the book was that the reader was supposed to feel sorry for the 'Emma' character in that scene. She doesn't mention the scene ever being revisited or ever having any further impact. So it does seem like more of LON's inability to empathise with anyone who isnt her. But there's a slight chance LON is just a bad writer and didn't develop her idea properly.

TheDavester

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Whiny, blande bleach blonde girls in terrible movies-see the movie she was 'championing' with White Girl. The actress cannot act, the role is more debauchery and 'shock' for the sake of shock.
Or same story with 'Striking Out'-the bland, 'powerful' woman who don't need no man. Those are two films and shows LoN liked-yet imdb hated White Girl.

And many others hated Striking Out-it's not because it's women leads, it's because they are bland leads.

And some of the reviews for WG summed it up perfectly-'White Girl is about being white, and a girl'. Ya know, the very things LoN champions...while claiming not to.

Ive a suspicion that she champions the Striking Out as shes trying to be buddies with Amy Huberman to get into Montrose .....She seems to retweet a lot and do the "you go girl" the RTE crew,e g, Vogue,Amy

ivytwine

TheDavester wrote: »

Ive a suspicion that she champions the Striking Out as shes trying to be buddies with Amy Huberman to get into Montrose .....She seems to retweet a lot and do the "you go girl" the RTE crew,e g, Vogue,Amy

That's definitely a factor and Irish media is so incestuous. I have no problem with Amy Huberman at all but I don't think Striking Out was anything special, and it's typical of RTE's risk averse strategy.

I think Ruth Negga is an interesting example. I get the vibe that's she's quite private and doesn't play the game. I feel that the reaction to her getting the oscar nom is a bit muted, compared to the reaction to Amy Huberman getting an IFTA. Or maybe people are drooling all over her and I don't know cos I'm not on twitter!

Widdershins

ivytwine wrote: »

it's not like you can't write interesting stuff about racism, sexual violence or LGBT issues. But shoehorning these things in just leads to inauthentic art. Something Hollywood is a master at.

God, no. I don't meant to knock it. Half of the books I've eaten in my life have been about peoples struggles, many of them women or men in poor countries. In a way that in itself is an engaging story. The writers were very skilled and there was more flesh to their stories than the central theme.

TheDavester

Widdershins wrote: »

What kind of women in film do LON and co. appreciate? Anyone know?

In addition to Twilight and probably sex and the city, I'd say she's looking forward to going with the girlies to see the new 50 Shades of Grey

hatrickpatrick

osarusan wrote: »

What line was crossed?

What I took from that article was - don't lament pregnant Irish women drinking their heads off when we don't actually know if that is the case, and also, there is conflicting research as to the impact that moderate drinking has on the foetus.

I don't see any reference to bodily autonomy (my body my choice, I have the right to drink whenever I want, etc) at all - I don't really see where you got that from at all.

Your reading of and reaction to the article baffles me really.

Right now, seeing as nobody knows whether there's a safe limit, people just shouldn't drink while pregnant. I'd agree with that being referred to as child endangerment, same as smoking during pregnancy - until and unless a safe quantity is established. IMO, to defend anyone who drinks during pregnancy is to defend an extraordinarily selfish, narcissistic act.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/drinking-alcohol-early-in-pregnancy-even-in-small-amounts-increases-chances-of-harming-your-baby-9182458.html

People who drink during pregnancy should be attacked for it. There's plenty of evidence that it's dangerous and very little evidence that it can be safe.

darkdubh

TheDavester wrote: »

Ive a suspicion that she champions the Striking Out as shes trying to be buddies with Amy Huberman to get into Montrose .....She seems to retweet a lot and do the "you go girl" the RTE crew,e g, Vogue,Amy

I thought exactly the same thing.

Widdershins

TheDavester wrote: »

In addition to Twilight and probably sex and the city, I'd say she's looking forward to going with the girlies to see the new 50 Shades of Grey

Hashtag Squadgoals?

RabbleRouser2k

ivytwine wrote: »

I can't multiquote bwhahaha

I wonder if anyone saying this has actually dated a man. Because the only people in my experience who have been disgusted by periods are boys, and weirdo man-boys like Donald Trump.

Generally, even from women, it's not so much menstruation and periods disgust people-it's kind of the way they go about it.

Okay, kind of lost myself there. For me, periods are fine (I grew up on a farm with cattle, and dogs-so we know all about the 'a cows bulling' or 'the dog's in heat'. We never neutered our pets, mainly because a good cattle dog, or mouse hunting/ rat killing dog is needed. So if you get a good one, you may want a puppy from them. I had no sisters, so that's how I learned about menstruation) but it's how some women are so disgusting with how they dispose of tampons or feminine hygiene products that bugs me.
For example, I lived with women before who were tidy and disposed of them properly. They were young too, but very responsible.

On the other hand, I also lived with women who over stuffed the bins, so much so crows tore holes in the bin bags, and strewn tampons all over the footpath and yard-the neighbours wrote letters complaining, and it was usually me that had to clean them up(they went other places weekends). They were horrifically messy-one of them moved out months later, and left food that had expired 6 months before. She was dangerous, tbh, cos some of that food would be meat, with open packets.
Similarly, in the place where I work, you always hear the cleaners talking about how the womens toilets are disgusting-pads or tampons not properly disposed of-it's like someone blowing their nose, then not even attempting to throw the tissue in the bin. Certain women working there are reluctant to use certain toilets in the building because it will always be a mess.

RabbleRouser2k

TheDavester wrote: »

Ive a suspicion that she champions the Striking Out as shes trying to be buddies with Amy Huberman to get into Montrose .....She seems to retweet a lot and do the "you go girl" the RTE crew,e g, Vogue,Amy

Comes across as incredibly immature too.

Like a teenager on fb going 'you alright hun?'. Even with 'White Girl' she wrote about 'her friend' who made the film-but that person is living in the states, probably has no idea who LoN is. But it almost felt like a 'will you direct the adaptation of my book, please?'

RabbleRouser2k

http://www.independent.ie/style/voices/niamh-horan-count-the-shades-of-grey-between-seduction-and-violation-35406260.html

Interesting article by Niamh Horan-I tend to agree with her on the majority of points.

Widdershins

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/style/voices/niamh-horan-count-the-shades-of-grey-between-seduction-and-violation-35406260.html

Interesting article by Niamh Horan-I tend to agree with her on the majority of points.

I completely agree that it's not as straightforward as that.

This is similar to what Louise O'Neill was getting at, though:

''And, whether we like it or not, we live in a world where women don't like to appear as though they pursue sex. They want to be desired by men, to feel they are being slowly seduced. Don't agree? Then ask yourself why more women don't carry condoms.''

Truthfully, I think if it's still an issue then that is a problem.

I wonder if many men would consider me a bit of a tramp if I was in a not-backwards-in-coming-forwards mood, and quite happy to dispense with slow seduction? Honestly, would that make me a ''nympho'' ?

neonsofa

Widdershins wrote: »

I completely agree that it's not as straightforward as that.

This is similar to what Louise O'Neill was getting at, though:

''And, whether we like it or not, we live in a world where women don't like to appear as though they pursue sex. They want to be desired by men, to feel they are being slowly seduced. Don't agree? Then ask yourself why more women don't carry condoms.''

Truthfully, I think if it's still an issue then that is a problem.

I wonder if many men would consider me a bit of a tramp if I was in a not-backwards-in-coming-forwards mood, and quite happy to dispense with slow seduction? Honestly, would that make me a ''nympho'' ?

Honestly without making myself sound like the village bike here, if I'm seeing a man or meet someone i am interested in and I want to have sex with him I'm not going to be coy about it to keep up some kind of appearance. We are both consenting adults and we are both more than aware of what is going on between us so acting like I need to be persuaded etc. is pointless imo. Anyway, back to the point, the only time a man has commented on it has been in a positive way, that he feels like we both equally enjoy sex and affection and that intimacy is never a "you cleaned the oven so I'll give you a hand job tomorrow at 5pm" kind of situation. And that is sad that for him that was a norm. But I have never gotten the impression it was viewed as a negative. In terms of being enthusiastic and initiating sex as opposed to waiting for the man to do so, I don't think it is an issue for most men, surely it just shows you're attracted to them.

Widdershins

neonsofa wrote: »

Honestly without making myself sound like the village bike here, if I'm seeing a man or meet someone i am interested in and I want to have sex with him I'm not going to be coy about it to keep up some kind of appearance. We are both consenting adults and we are both more than aware of what is going on between us so acting like I need to be persuaded etc. is pointless imo. Anyway, back to the point, the only time a man has commented on it has been in a positive way, that he feels like we both equally enjoy sex and affection and that intimacy is never a "you cleaned the oven so I'll give you a hand job tomorrow at 5pm" kind of situation. And that is sad that for him that was a norm. But I have never gotten the impression it was viewed as a negative. In terms of being enthusiastic and initiating sex as opposed to waiting for the man to do so, I don't think it is an issue for most men, surely it just shows you're attracted to them.

I've seen the term ''Chore Sex'' used on Boards. And I've seen people assert that women naturally have a lower sexual appetite than men. Those with an equal sex drive are some form of abberation?
I find all that a bit sad. And it would put me off dating, if I was to become single.

neonsofa

Widdershins wrote: »

I've seen the term ''Chore Sex'' used on Boards. And I've seen people assert that women naturally have a lower sexual appetite than men. Those with an equal sex drive are some form of abberation?
I find all that a bit sad. And it would put me off dating, if I was to become single.

No I don't think that is the case. My point was that (in my case at least) a woman's sex drive is only commented on (positively) if there has been issues previously in that regard. As is the case for everything in life. It has never been mentioned negatively, however for all i know they could mention to their next sexual partner that their previous woman was a predator and they enjoy the more demure approach :pac:

[Deleted User]

On average/in general women do have a lower sex drive than men. It's contrarianism for the sake of it to say otherwise.

I've slept with women on the first date or whatever. Didn't make me think less of them. If anything the whole "wait x dates" thing is bloody stupid in my eyes.

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

On average/in general women do have a lower sex drive than men. It's contrarianism for the sake of it to say otherwise.

I've slept with women on the first date or whatever. Didn't make me think less of them. If anything the whole "wait x dates" thing is bloody stupid in my eyes.

I can accept that, assuming it's proven. I still wonder why, though. If you've never had a great experience of it then you wouldn't be too interested in it.
My friend once asked what's better, a good sneeze or an orgasm.

I'm lucky to have only had disappointing sex once (I mean really awful) but I remember it well enough to wonder if that's all she's used to having, because there is no way she could ask that otherwise. (she was definitely being completely serious)

jameorahiely

Widdershins wrote: »

I can accept that, assuming it's proven. I still wonder why, though. If you've never had a great experience of it then you wouldn't be too interested in it.
My friend once asked what's better, a good sneeze or an orgasm. I'm lucky to have only had disappointing sex once (I mean really awful) but I remember it well enough to wonder if that's all she's used to having, because there is no way she could ask that otherwise. (she was definitely being completely serious)

It takes 2 people to be involved in making it a great experience for both of them. You make it sound lile your freind was a passive participant and was expecting great sex to be done for her, without her having any role in making it a great experience.

neonsofa

Widdershins wrote: »

I can accept that, assuming it's proven. I still wonder why, though. If you've never had a great experience of it then you wouldn't be too interested in it.
My friend once asked what's better, a good sneeze or an orgasm. I'm lucky to have only had disappointing sex once (I mean really awful) but I remember it well enough to wonder if that's all she's used to having, because there is no way she could ask that otherwise. (she was definitely being completely serious)

Even if you had amazing sex all the time, if your hormones are erratic or you are depressed, or so many other factors that i cant list them all, you just won't physically be in the mood. Women go through hormonal changes constantly during their cycle, so it makes sense that their drive is more susceptible to change (maybe?!). The pill can **** up your sex drive so bad due to hormonal changes. It's not just a case of women "liking" or enjoying sex.