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

The J Stands for Jay

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/mna-na-heireann-i-am-proud-to-be-one-of-you-444336.html?&session=iCh+95ijx1IGX+vvKZXLyfS1mDCi/XGNPGvifNohO1c=

Oh LoN...why do you make my forehead sore with the needless ridiculousness on your part. I slap my forehead so many times reading her crud, I'm in danger of a brain injury.

No, just no, no,no,no,no, no...

No it's not. It's biological, inherent, derived from our genes.

I wonder what it's like asking her questions like what she wants for breakfast tomorrow. "Time is an illusory social construct. Breakfast doubly so."

Wibbs

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

No it's not. It's biological, inherent, derived from our genes.

It seems to depend on when it suits feminism. It's biology when it comes to reproductive rights, or indeed the earlier example that suggests women are inherently more fearful and anxious, so we have to bow to that, but it's all about "social constructs" when that suits the ideology. They can't seem to make their mind up and why I have generally found debating feminists is like herding cats.

Wibbs

I read that latest link for my sins. Jesus. Still going on about the pay gap, when Irish women advocacy groups have shown(well tried to misdirect) for the average the pay gap goes the other way. Makes perfect sense when the average Irish woman is more educated than the average Irish man(and the gap is widening) and more likely to have a job in the first place. Dismally low rates of convictions in sexual assault cases? God forbid the law still recognises the requirement for conviction on evidence of guilt and not on hearsay, feels and feminist dogma(when it suits). Domestic abuse and support services shutting down? Study after study has shown that the rates are far more equal across the genders and yet not one support service for men. We're really not very good at this patriarchy stuff lads. I'm in agreement with her regarding abortion.

This sums up her divisive ballsology quite well: the pride we enjoy when one of our own is succeeding. . One of our own eh? Them and us(except for daddy) and she's all too happy to seek out this camaraderie that according to the dogma is driven entirely by "cultural cues". And she has the barefaced gall to claim she's discussing equality? You couldn't make this level of bullshít up. Well apparently you can... Why these ideologues that clog up the media don't just go and peddle the cause on the US campus circuit to easy squeaks of agreement and be done with it. Then again I suspect that's precisely what a few are aiming for.

red ears

I wonder how she would react if men referred to having pride in one of their own doing well.

Unless women work the same long hours men do the only way the paygap as defined by LON types can be closed is by womens hourly pay rising significantly above mens. I suspect Louise understands this and would be very happy for that to transpire. They will never admit that though. They never talk about hourly pay. I refuse to accept they haven't considered hourly pay comparisons. It just doesn't suit their objectives. Feminists like Louise want to win. It's not about equality.

py2006

Domestic violence is said to affect one in three women in this country and yet we see vital shelters being closed down due to lack of funding.

Says who?? If you are going to post stats, source them. Otherwise we will assume you are making it up.

I very much doubt it is 1 in 3.

darkdubh

She takes criticism well our Louise.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838001262020997120

py2006

Women have it so awful in Ireland according to LON. Why aren't they leaving in their droves to get out of this awful country that has a culture of rape, treats women as second class citizens and were ALL THE MEN rape, harass, assault women on a daily basis.

Also, LON, please do not refer to your female friends as "BITCHES", it really isn't nice. You wouldn't like us men calling you/them by that name now would you?

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838105510008262657

midlandsmissus

py2006 wrote: »

Women have it so awful in Ireland according to LON. Why aren't they leaving in their droves to get out of this awful country that has a culture of rape, treats women as second class citizens and were ALL THE MEN rape, harass, assault women on a daily basis.

Also, LON, please do not refer to your female friends as "BITCHES", it really isn't nice. You wouldn't like us men calling you/them by that name now would you?
F

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838105510008262657

I left the country and my sexual assault was a deciding factor.

Mountainsandh

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems to depend on when it suits feminism. It's biology when it comes to reproductive rights, or indeed the earlier example that suggests women are inherently more fearful and anxious, so we have to bow to that, but it's all about "social constructs" when that suits the ideology. They can't seem to make their mind up and why I have generally found debating feminists is like herding cats.

It's downright paradoxical.

It means that the act of rape does not happen in a vacuum. Everything that surrounds us, socially and culturally influence who we are as people. Dots have been connected between things that happen in every day life and rape. Harassment, gender norms, sexual objectification (both in the media and on an individual level) are a selection of things that remain present in our society.

I am a man. I have been raped. It took me a very long time to come to terms with the fact that that is exactly what it was. The hesitation that I felt for so long was based in what I had learned from the gender norms present in our society. Gender norms that are reinforced not only socially and culturally but also legally in regard to rape in this country. .

Bridging the Gap I don't mean to be abrupt or cause distress, but if your rape was committed by a woman, then it goes against everything you base your first quote on.
Gender norms, harassment, sexual objectification ... correct me if I'm wrong, but the feminist stance seems to focus essentially on men being the perpetrators and women being the victims.
So how then, can a woman committing rape be included in talks about gender norms, societal influence ?
Are women also educated in a society where females are just as likely to harass, objectify, and rape men then ?
If you believe so, then the whole feminist movement should really acknowledge that, which doesn't seem to be the case. If you believe the above, really the whole narrative changes, as women and men are equally likely to be victims and perpetrators, and the movement is not so much a "feminist" movement, as a "societal" movement. As in, denouncing behaviours in society, acceptance of certain norms and education which you believe are wrong, without any reference to gender/sex whatsoever.
It is not about equality anymore, equality is not relevant to the discussion. It's about how we go about life, and our moral compass, whether man or woman.
But I can't reconcile that to what I see from feminists, for example this blogger who was under scrutiny here on boards recently, and who implied that commenting about JTrudeau's bum as a woman was not objectification in the same sense as a man like McGregor commenting on the Kardashian's bums.

Maybe I'm completely misunderstanding here. I'm only half following this discussion tbh.

Outlaw Pete

Now remember folks... she "loves men".

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838352402571018240

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

It seems to depend on when it suits feminism. It's biology when it comes to reproductive rights, or indeed the earlier example that suggests women are inherently more fearful and anxious, so we have to bow to that, but it's all about "social constructs" when that suits the ideology. They can't seem to make their mind up and why I have generally found debating feminists is like herding cats.

I find the whole "gender is a social construct" mantra a bit strange. It was influenced entirely from French postmodernist thinking (not exactly a stable foundation) and the only "evidence" to back it up comes from social science studies carried out by people who already sign up fully to the notion. Actual scientific studies show that there are differences. In one study where boys are raised as girls, most of them ended up identifying as male when they got older and all displayed at least some moderate male traits etc. Strangely enough, these are ignored, mainly because a lot of gender theory is built upon shoddy postmodernism. If that gets exposed, then its bye bye millions of dollars in funding. I would have more time for it if it took on board the vast amount of proper scientific studies to the contrary and constructed theories from there.

The irony of this is, US social sciences departments (lead mainly by the gender studies crew) are organising a March for Science in April to protest the climate change denial of the Trump administration (I have no problem there). However, it is a bit rich to protest about science denial, when they themselves see no problem with it when it suits their own gravy train. Conservatives in the US do get a bashing for being anti-science but the truth is that no side of the US political spectrum has a monopoly on science denial.

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now remember folks... she "loves men".

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838352402571018240

While conveniently ignoring that women are more likely to be religious and the ardent consumers and practitioners of dogma, magical thinking and superstition, from catechism to crystal healing*. It wasn't men running the Magdalene laundries, certainly not at the coalface. God forbid thinking it doesn't run neatly along gender lines, but the simplistic of mind like to paint the world in monochrome.

*For a change this does seem to have far more of a basis in culture than the usual feminist social construct rhetoric.

Wibbs

mzungu wrote: »

However, it is a bit rich to protest about science denial, when they themselves see no problem with it when it suits their own gravy train. Conservatives in the US do get a bashing for being anti-science but the truth is that no side of the US political spectrum has a monopoly on science denial.

As commentators like Paglia have noted US college social sciences and humanities faculties, professors and students have scarily scant knowledge or interest in the broader sciences(and history), instead going off "approved" philosophies and looking for ever more "approved" oversight over same. So regardless of political leanings neither side is up to speed on science and both will jump on whatever "science" agrees with their pre agreed positions.

mzungu

Just to revisit this, because it highlights nicely a point I wish to make....

bridgingthegap wrote: »

The short of it is, people, no matter how small the number (it is not small) are getting raped. There are people that want to address this issue with the ultimate and ideal hope of making it not exist anymore. The approach taken in tackling the issue can hit some wrong notes at times, by few or by many. Still, people are making an effort. However insular and misguided it may seem to you, they are doing something that is creating a dialogue, raising awareness and making people question their conduct with an attempt at making the world a better place. Those in opposition to the term being used do not appear to be doing much in the way of providing an alternate approach.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Now remember folks... she "loves men".

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838352402571018240

Yep, that looks like "raising awareness and making people question their conduct with an attempt at making the world a better place" indeed! :P

In my view, the testimony on this thread (and the other one last week) from rape survivors probably did more to help the average Jane and Joe understand rape than all the Twitter clicktivism, like-mining and biased documentaries ever could.

neonsofa

Wibbs wrote: »

While conveniently ignoring that women are more likely to be religious and the ardent consumers and practitioners of dogma, magical thinking and superstition, from catechism to crystal healing*. It wasn't men running the Magdalene laundries, certainly not at the coalface. God forbid thinking it doesn't run neatly along gender lines, but the simplistic of mind like to paint the world in monochrome.

*For a change this does seem to have far more of a basis in culture than the usual feminist social construct rhetoric.

Tbf I think she was likening "the church", including the women in it, to the nasty mean men. So those within the church are excluded from the victim hood as they were part of said church which is, as she says, as bad as white men. That's what I read from it anyway but her whole twitter feed seems to be a bit of a contradiction so doesn't make sense at the best of times!

johnnyskeleton

While the election of a man who boasted about sexual assault (grab ‘em by the pussy) as US president was a devastating blow and an undeniable victory for misogyny and sexism — made all the more incomprehensible by the revelation that over 50% of white women voted for him

Haha. Self hating women are also part of the problem it seems. To be fair to her, that 50% of white women can be safely ignored once we apply a white privilege band aid.

Outlaw Pete

She's on one today, referencing the fact that the suffragettes once used arson as a means of getting their voices heard (famously once even trying to burn down our Theatre Royal) and is calling for similar to happen again it would appear.

Hope they don't go for the Gaiety, I have tickets for Educating Rita there in a few weeks time.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838355194739994624
https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838355676741128193

py2006

She should start by burning her books

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She's on one today, referencing the fact that the suffragettes...

I'll bet the farm she won't mention the same women who were looking for actual parity and equality and responsibility with men, including when it didn't suit them. No, the LON's of this world want special treatment when and where it suits(and you can be sure she'd not get close to going to gaol. She'd pull the poor me victim defence and knows she'd walk, even if she did have the stones to actually get serious). Rights without as many responsibilities. To be even more a socially and legally protected demographic. The level of irony and lack of awareness is truly staggering.

Sand

Going to jail would be a great career move for LON. Imagine her being able to join the US talk show circuit introduced as a feminist thinker unjustly jailed for her ideals...cha ching!

Outlaw Pete

Wibbs wrote: »

I'll bet the farm she won't mention the same women who were looking for actual parity and equality and responsibility with men, including when it didn't suit them.

Course not nor I bet reference the fact that 40% of the male population in the UK didn't have the right to vote at the time either (nor even soldiers who had been away at war for a year or more).

They say the victors rewrite history well that sure is the case with regards to the right to vote, as the recent Suffragette movie showed us with scenes like the following.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ukiVtGlaw

red ears

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

She's on one today, referencing the fact that the suffragettes once used arson as a means of getting their voices heard (famously once even trying to burn down our Theatre Royal) and is calling for similar to happen again it would appear.

Hope they don't go for the Gaiety, I have tickets for Educating Rita there in a few weeks time.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838355194739994624
https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/838355676741128193

This girl is one of two things, a liar or stupid. Women in Ireland have never had it so good. Society is being engineered to suit them.

Wibbs

Sand wrote: »

Going to jail would be a great career move for LON. Imagine her being able to join the US talk show circuit introduced as a feminist thinker unjustly jailed for her ideals...cha ching!

Sure S, but it's hard enough to end up in the clink for protesting for any demographic, but it's a near guaranteed impossibility for an Irish middle class white woman, scion of the Gaaristocracy and meeeeja darling of the twattering classes(and her regular references of mental difficulties and therapy) to get beyond a court hearing at most. It's simply never gonna happen.

Plus it's all too easy to be a keyboard warrior on Twatter and ArseBook and in the meeeja, like any other troll, but quite different to put one's arse on the line.

TBH I could see someone like Una Mulally pitching in. I would agree with her on just about nothing, but I get the impression she's far more genuine and not nearly so concerned with image control. No cynical crying selfies and visceral screams with her.

red ears

Wibbs wrote: »

TBH I could see someone like Una Mulally pitching in. I would agree with her on just about nothing, but I get the impression she's far more genuine and not nearly so concerned with image control. No cynical crying selfies and visceral screams with her.

She was due to go on the late late show on Friday for a bit of a debate, Ian o Doherty was due on too but Una cancelled. If what she talks about week in week out in the times was fairly solid she should have had no problems defending those positions against o Doherty. She appears to have taken fright.

Richard Hillman

She needs to visit her therapist again because it seems like she is having another episode. Whatever moment from her past is haunting her needs to be addressed and quick.

Great news for the editors taking advantage of her.

b_mac2

Richard Hillman wrote: »

Great news for the editors taking advantage of her.

Yeah, I can't help but imagining the lot of them laughing uncontrollably as soon as she leaves the office. I know I would.

TheDavester

b_mac2 wrote: »

Yeah, I can't help but imagining the lot of them laughing uncontrollably as soon as she leaves the office. I know I would.

blame the fella who she dated, appently he got her in to the examiner according to one of her articles

mzungu

red ears wrote: »

She was due to go on the late late show on Friday for a bit of a debate, Ian o Doherty was due on too but Una cancelled. If what she talks about week in week out in the times was fairly solid she should have had no problems defending those positions against o Doherty. She appears to have taken fright.

After the way O'Doherty behaved, I don't blame her in the slightest. He was a disgrace.

midlandsmissus

Feel good tearing apart a young girl?

neonsofa

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Feel good tearing apart a young girl?

Isn't she in her 30s? I think people would be a lot more forgiving if she was a young girl who doesn't know any better.