Louise O Neill on rape culture.

08-03-2017 08:58AM

That's a good point there Lloyd, the Marriage Equality Ref was really bright and warm and welcoming, inclusive of everyone. Loads of people partied when that passed and it was generally a happy and exciting time. I know the reason for the colour scheme and all but I never really thought about how great it was. Some of the Repeal people are ready to bark at you if there's even a hint you're not onside with them. I'll vote pro choice but Radfems would almost make you spite yourself... Almost!

LuckyLloyd · 08-03-2017 09:29AM

Omackeral wrote: »

That's a good point there Lloyd, the Marriage Equality Ref was really bright and warm and welcoming, inclusive of everyone. Loads of people partied when that passed and it was generally a happy and exciting time. I know the reason for the colour scheme and all but I never really thought about how great it was. Some of the Repeal people are ready to bark at you if there's even a hint you're not onside with them. I'll vote pro choice but Radfems would almost make you spite yourself... Almost!

To be clear, I fully agree with repealing the constitutional amendment and allowing the government of the day to legislate the issue going forward. I just think the campaign is off base presently and that - on a general level - they're going too early. I think they need to have draft replacement legislation with time based limitations worked through in advance of the campaign also as the spectre of mid to late term abortions will be a stick they get bashed with by the pro life side. And that will resonate with a huge cross section of the electorate.

neonsofa · 08-03-2017 09:41AM

Omackeral wrote: »

That's a good point there Lloyd, the Marriage Equality Ref was really bright and warm and welcoming, inclusive of everyone. Loads of people partied when that passed and it was generally a happy and exciting time. I know the reason for the colour scheme and all but I never really thought about how great it was. Some of the Repeal people are ready to bark at you if there's even a hint you're not onside with them. I'll vote pro choice but Radfems would almost make you spite yourself... Almost!

Not everyone experienced the marriage referendum in that way Omackeral. Afterwards maybe but that was with the validation of the result behind them, if thats the right word. Many people were accused of awful things during that campaign purely because they love a certain gender. Many people felt it was humiliating having to practically beg their neighbours to vote yes so that they could marry. It was a very sad and isolating time in the run up to that yes for some people, and many people feared that it would not be a yes and dreaded yet another referendum. I understand your point on the nicer side of the marriage referendum but there was a lot of nastiness during that campaign too. And there was actually a radical yes side too who I worried would negatively impact the campaign for the very reason you say about the repeal side- Barking at people who opposed rather than trying to educate people.

Wibbs · 08-03-2017 10:08AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Her novels are aimed at teenage girls; she makes a lot of appearances at Universities and Schools; a cursory glance at her social media indicates that a decent percentage of her following are young people. She is peddling a deeply flawed and immature view of the world to young people. The issue of course is that within the context of the ever more compartmentalised and echo chamber laden Internet those young people may never step outside such influences.

That is my impression too LL. You can get similar "older types aping adolescent think to an adolescent audience" in other areas of an increasingly talking to themselves groups. It can be very appealing to young men and women trying to work stuff out for themselves in a complex world, when they hear back their own thoughts from an "adult". Not so good. For me one of the advantages of the young is to think out of the box, to question authority and to essentially think and say "sod off grandad, we're trying to think in a different direction". That is or should be the job of youth. Sadly it seems more and more too many want more authority over themselves. And worse, authority over others that may think in a different way, so they can drown that out if it doesn't suit their personal narrative. Terribly divisive.

osarusan · 08-03-2017 10:34AM

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I think they need to have draft replacement legislation with time based limitations worked through in advance of the campaign also as the spectre of mid to late term abortions will be a stick they get bashed with by the pro life side. And that will resonate with a huge cross section of the electorate.

I realise that I'm repeating what I've said on another thread but:

The legislation is already in place. It's the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

Under the Act, abortion will still only be accessible when there is a risk to the life of the pregnant woman. The risks are through illness, through sudden emergency, and through a risk of suicide (considered genuine by a psychiatrist).

Abortion would still be illegal even in cases of rape, and fatal foetal abnormality (unless they met the criteria for risking the life of the woman).

Abortion on demand would still be illegal also. So I don't know how they would work in time-limits, given that, if the 8th amendment was repealed tomorrow, it would still be illegal at all times under the current legislation.

It's terrible campaigning if the Repeal side are not assuaging fears by highlighting the existing and quite restrictive legislation.

Also, I don't really know what they are 'campaigning' for as nothing about the issue or any referendum has been decided yet. Perhaps they plan to be something of a permanent presence, a bit like Youth Defence is.

ivytwine · 08-03-2017 11:20AM

Sorry Humria, for dragging this back up, but I meant to reply to a few of your points and I never seem to be near a desktop these times.

Humria wrote: »

Female doctors are interrupted more than male doctors: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11456245

In mixed groups men speak more then women (75% vs 25% in this particular study) and have more influence on the conversation: http://www.bu.edu/wgs/files/2014/12/Karpowitz-et-al.-2012.pdf

In this study women but not men, were negatively viewed for speaking more than other: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0001839212439994

Female politicians are seen are penalised for seeming "power-seeking" while males politicians are not : http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/price-power-power-seeking-and-backlash-against-female-politicians

As this is research, I'm sure are are other studies that contradict them. I'm only using them as a pint to illustrate that we (both men and women) can treat the sexes differently, and unfairly. I'm sure are times that men are discriminated against too, it's just harder to find the research (which in itself is a disadvantage).

The point is that we have to know what are biases are before we can change them, and doing this is an advantage for both sexes.

Honestly it's this stuff that depresses me FAR more than anything about "rape culture". How do we counter this stuff? Women do have educational advantage at present, so maybe it will even itself out as more women move into the workplace. But it certainly won't be helped by a Tumblr-type feminism that casts women as victims.

Humria wrote: »

On regards the rape culture thing, it's a bit of a loaded term really. I don't accept the argument that because there is far more rape in African countries that it's not a problem here. Our health system is much better too but that doesn't mean we all think it's great. Obviously a very small proportion of men are rapists and men can also be victims of rape. Again, I would argue that it's about OUR beliefs about rape. Often, women can be harsher critics of other women than men can.

It's cases like this that make me think that we still have a ways in how we think about rape:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/the-sex-case-that-divided-a-town-and-shocked-a-watching-nation-26593097.html

This case was more about class than "rape culture", IMO.

Humria wrote: »

I actually think the main problem is with the judicial system. Our justice system makes defendants witnesses in their own trials. It's not just a problem in rape cases. A male acquaintance of mine was attacked in a nightclub and sustained some really bad injuries. The case went to trail and he said the experience was really traumatic. He said it felt like he was on trail. The prosecution tried to destroy his character and reputation. So it's not limited to rape victims but it does contribute towards the lack of prosecutions.

Absolutely agree. I think our judges, in sentencing especially, seem to have no idea of the impact of any violent crime on the victim. I would love for them to be given some kind of training on what the impact is on people in terms of trauma, family repercussions etc.

Humria wrote: »

So on a different point. I want you to try picture something for me. Imagine a girl walking home at after a night out. She gets attacked and raped. Is there a part of you thinking that she shouldn't have been walking home by herself? I know there is a part of me that does. Now, picture a man walking home by himself after a night out. He get attacked and beaten up. Do you blame him for walking home alone or do you think he was just really unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? I know I think about them differently, even if I'm annoyed that I do it. But I'm aware of it, that's the point.

I may think, oh that was a bit silly to walk home at that hour in that neighbourhood for either gender. Blame either of them? Nope. The fault lies with the perpetrator.

Humria wrote: »

As a women I feel like I constantly have to think about my safety. I was really restless last night and would loved to have gone for a run to relax. I didn't though because it was late and I remembered the story of a women who was attacked in the area while out running in the dark. If I go out for a night out I have to plan my return home well in advance. Who will I be with, where do they live, how far is it to the taxi, am I safe in the taxi? I think of stories of women in fake taxis who were abducted and raped. I think women get frustrated that some men don't understand this because they take their safety for granted.

I'm very careful about how I word this as I feel it may come across as trivialising sexual assault, but the problem IMO is that women are brainwashed from childhood to believe that rapists prowl the streets and laneways. Bloody hell, that's even what Red Riding Hood is really about. Lurid TV shows, films- they all contribute. We're also conditioned to believe it's absolutely the worst thing that can happen to a person and yeah, it probably is, but it's more likely to be done by someone you know, and people can survive and even thrive afterwards.

Go for your bloody run, I mean that. Unless the guards have issued a warning about your area- like Killiney recently- you're statistically likely to be ok. I lived with a girl who went for runs most evenings; guess what, several years later, she's fine. In fact the only dodgy thing to happen when I lived with her is a creepy guy moved across from us and tried to inveigle himself into our house, inviting himself to house parties etc. If he had done something to one of us- and I think he was capable- he would have been a person known to us. To be fair to the guards, they were on it, they had their eye on him as soon as he moved in and actually came to the house on their own initiative and asked us had we seen any strange people in the area. He was gone almost instantly afterwards.

Likewise, for all the rumours of a supposed rapist wandering around my college campus, the only victims of violence by a stranger that I could definitively confirm were all male- all muggings.

anna080 wrote: »

This has probably already been covered here, but she tweeted this yesterday and it really annoyed me; "I'm tired of feeling scared for my pregnant friends, knowing that saving their lives would be a secondary concern if something went wrong".
Now I myself am pro-choice, but this scaremongering serves nobody and just shows how ill informed she actually is. She should familiarise herself with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013.
She needs to quit with the hysterics. Her militance is off putting and risks harming the campaign.

The hysterics are wearying. If she genuinely goes to the worst case scenario when she hears someone is pregnant, she has a problem.

mzungu wrote: »

Unfortunately, I think you are right. I was watching Pat Kenny there last week and Maria Steen from the Iona Institute was on. Much and all as I disagree with her viewpoint, it pains me to admit she ran rings around the pro-choice side in that exchange. She knows her stuff and has her arguments watertight, and if the pro-choice side believe that referring to a foetus as a "clump of cells" amounts to an argument, then they won't be able to win over middle of the road voters. Methinks fighting the Repeal battle on Twitter has left some of these "activists" somewhat lacking when it comes to properly debating their position.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

She did this, twice, and really-she just showed how prepared she was each time. Last time she was on, it was about co-educational vs CAtholic schools-and she was up against three people and she 'Killed' up there (as a comedian would say) she just looked so good, so professional-Claire Byrne showed a clear bias, and she highlighted how she, herself, wasn't able to reach the same level of intelligence as Steen.
It was kind of a masterclass-I wanted to disagree with Ms Steen, but she had her facts, reading, and so on done. I had to wonder what RTE were even doing putting her in a debate, with three people, who had 'NO' research done. One was a mom/ actress, and I really questioned why she was there-she had this usual 'parent' thing (hyphens because not every parent is like that) where their experience is the sole experience of 'everyone'-when it's absolutely not.

I swear, RTE gave Trump voters a hard time for their Trump supporters 'feel' rather than facts-but RTE have made the same mistake themselves, time and again.

Maria Steen is a nasty piece of work as she demonstrated when she was on with one of the women from TFMR a few years back. However she is extremely composed, articulate and unemotional. She needs to be met with similar. I don't actually see of anyone in the pro-choice side up to it at present.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/839212795090649090

Plus she tweeted this, without clarity, so she 'could' be joking...or she may not.

Guess which side I fall on?

She also tweeted how for the 'Strike for repeal' she'll be sitting at home with a bed robe on, and no makeup...I don't really thing that's what the strikers want, tbh LoN.

That's genuinely galling tbh. I'm not going on strike today (I am wearing black, but that's most days). But there are people up and down Ireland who will be having awkward conversations with their bosses and making a genuine effort.

She could at least take a spin up to Cork and join a demonstration.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There are some genuinely intelligent Irish female role models on twitter tho-like, I follow ladies like Stefanie Preissner on twitter, and she's actually really refreshing. She's younger than LoN, but she has this independence/ strength about her that's actually rare. Talks a lot about her grandmother too, but in a positive way-not mocking, more admiration. IF there is a mention of anything feminist/ women, it's not in a way that it pollutes her feed-she's said nothing about the 'Tuam babies' for example(God, the amount of feminists babbling on about that-calling for CAB to get involved etc-ugh, learn to law ppl. Yes it was horrible, but the past is ugly, very ugly, and the best one can hope for is try and make sure something like that never happens again. And yes, I was as horrified as anyone reading about it.), and she's been open about stuff like 'I know I should support breast feeding mothers, but I often feel uncomfortable'.
She's actually pretty refreshing. Fun interview too.

(Okay,I have a crush on her- I'll admit that up front...at the end of my post).

I really like Stefanie Preissner as well. I heard her on Nadine O'Regan's rather lovely show on Today FM and she came across as genuine and warm-hearted. I can identify with her too, she's working class, daughter of a single mother; that's where I'm coming from too.

I think my main gall with LON is increasingly class-based; for all her talk of privilege she's a very middle-class feminist. She's never had to work ****ty jobs or struggle financially- this colours your experience and your outlook- and frankly makes you grow up. I don't think she's ever truly been on the outside. One exchange on Twitter I recall from a long time ago was about the word "basic". I am not one of those "women must support other women at all costs" but I do not like judging women based on their tastes, hobbies etc- that's exactly what calling someone "basic" is, judging them for liking popular things. I don't think she grasped that doing that to other women is wrong and unfair. It reminded me, actually, of the boys I hung out with in school, and their constant gatekeeping regarding music.

The scandal of the Magdalenes, homes etc was not exclusively working class, but the working-class were disproportionally affected. That I think is the real reason for government inaction. I would love to see CAB seize the Bon Secours' assets, but it won't happen.

Omackeral wrote: »

That's a good point there Lloyd, the Marriage Equality Ref was really bright and warm and welcoming, inclusive of everyone. Loads of people partied when that passed and it was generally a happy and exciting time. I know the reason for the colour scheme and all but I never really thought about how great it was. Some of the Repeal people are ready to bark at you if there's even a hint you're not onside with them. I'll vote pro choice but Radfems would almost make you spite yourself... Almost!

The problem is that being pro-choice is almost by definition not warm or welcoming. Pro-lifers can claim the fluffy cute little babies in their pastel blankets. It's- the way I see it anyway- the realist, pragmatic solution to the fact that we humans have made a complete arse of one of our most basic functions.

Panti gave a very good warning when he said that the way the campaign is going won't play in the sticks. I think what the pro-choice side should do is point out the flaws and hypocrisies in the pro-life side; that unfortunately the pro-life position is not a workable one.

neonsofa wrote: »

Not everyone experienced the marriage referendum in that way Omackeral. Afterwards maybe but that was with the validation of the result behind them, if thats the right word. Many people were accused of awful things during that campaign purely because they love a certain gender. Many people felt it was humiliating having to practically beg their neighbours to vote yes so that they could marry. It was a very sad and isolating time in the run up to that yes for some people, and many people feared that it would not be a yes and dreaded yet another referendum. I understand your point on the nicer side of the marriage referendum but there was a lot of nastiness during that campaign too. And there was actually a radical yes side too who I worried would negatively impact the campaign for the very reason you say about the repeal side- Barking at people who opposed rather than trying to educate people.

A very important point that has been forgotten in the euphoria of the result.

08-03-2017 11:56AM

neonsofa wrote: »

Not everyone experienced the marriage referendum in that way Omackeral. Afterwards maybe but that was with the validation of the result behind them, if thats the right word. Many people were accused of awful things during that campaign purely because they love a certain gender. Many people felt it was humiliating having to practically beg their neighbours to vote yes so that they could marry. It was a very sad and isolating time in the run up to that yes for some people, and many people feared that it would not be a yes and dreaded yet another referendum. I understand your point on the nicer side of the marriage referendum but there was a lot of nastiness during that campaign too. And there was actually a radical yes side too who I worried would negatively impact the campaign for the very reason you say about the repeal side- Barking at people who opposed rather than trying to educate people.

Maybe it was the circles I run in but it was almost 100% support for the YES side among my peers. The other side were seen as outdated and frankly hadn't really a leg to stand on as far as we could see. I fully accept your testimony and wouldn't dare speak of the worry some people would have experienced in the run up to it. Just my own experience I guess. Your point is very much taken on board though.

neonsofa · 08-03-2017 12:09PM

Omackeral wrote: »

Maybe it was the circles I run in but it was almost 100% support for the YES side among my peers. The other side were seen as outdated and frankly hadn't really a leg to stand on as far as we could see. I fully accept your testimony and wouldn't dare speak of the worry some people would have experienced in the run up to it. Just my own experience I guess. Your point is very much taken on board though.

Oh thankfully it was the same in my circle. But discussing the issues with older people or relatives, I was soon slapped back down to the reality of the world we live in. The fact that myself and my friends considered their views, like you say, outdated and clearly not ok, did not change the fact they still held those beliefs and had a valid vote on the matter. And for every person who spoke about their views openly, we knew there were others who felt the same deep down but couldn't say that due to the fact that the yes side were so vocal and the fear of being labelled a bigot. There were many seemingly rational thinking people who would say "oh I don't mind what ~they~ do, but a child deserves a mam and a dad", despite the fact that the referendum had nothing to do with that, and no matter how much you discussed it you knew deep down they were going to vote no "for the children/just in case/it's too soon/we just don't know". And that was the worry.

retro:electro · 08-03-2017 05:56PM

Well well well little miss Louise didn't make it to the march today because she had a doctors appointment and therapy and a work meeting. She made a point of stating that these appointments were with women so that's okay. So only leave your work place and strike if your employer is a man, cos men are bad m'kay? She's another "do as I say, not as I do", sh!te talking hypocrite.

08-03-2017 06:18PM

anna080 wrote: »

Well well well little miss Louise didn't make it to the march today because she had a doctors appointment and therapy and a work meeting. She made a point of stating that these appointments were with women so that's okay. So only leave your work place and strike if your employer is a man, cos men are bad m'kay? She's another "do as I say, not as I do", sh!te talking hypocrite.

She is really a lifetime teenager - her parents seem to give into her and she has no logic with her rants

ivytwine · 08-03-2017 06:23PM

anna080 wrote: »

Well well well little miss Louise didn't make it to the march today because she had a doctors appointment and therapy and a work meeting. She made a point of stating that these appointments were with women so that's okay. So only leave your work place and strike if your employer is a man, cos men are bad m'kay? She's another "do as I say, not as I do", sh!te talking hypocrite.

Because it's not like today was planned for months or anything.

I can't take time off work at present, genuinely, so I guess I'm in no position to talk.

However, many of these Twitter activists are seemingly incapable of taking any practical action whatsoever.

retro:electro · 08-03-2017 06:25PM

"Let's burn some sh!t down", but not on the day of the women's march that has been organised for months because I've a doctors appointment that day. But it's okay cos my doctor is a woman woo girl power.

timmy880 · 08-03-2017 06:28PM

anna080 wrote: »

Well well well little miss Louise didn't make it to the march today because she had a doctors appointment and therapy and a work meeting. She made a point of stating that these appointments were with women so that's okay. So only leave your work place and strike if your employer is a man, cos men are bad m'kay? She's another "do as I say, not as I do", sh!te talking hypocrite.

Meh, this shouldn't be surprising... If there was any promotion involved for her book she would have been there.

She's all talk. And it works for her. Sadly.

red ears · 08-03-2017 06:48PM

anna080 wrote: »

Well well well little miss Louise didn't make it to the march today because she had a doctors appointment and therapy and a work meeting. She made a point of stating that these appointments were with women so that's okay. So only leave your work place and strike if your employer is a man, cos men are bad m'kay? She's another "do as I say, not as I do", sh!te talking hypocrite.

I can imagine her insisting on a female doctor and therapist. The girl has a major issue with men.

The_Valeyard · 08-03-2017 06:52PM

red ears wrote: »

I can imagine her insisting on a female doctor and therapist. The girl has a major issue with men.

Didnt you get the memo? All men are bast*rds.

The_Kew_Tour · 08-03-2017 07:08PM

Says it all about her, all talk, no action.

08-03-2017 07:27PM

Maybe she just had a doctor's appointment?

I mean, it's not as if attending some march was really dangerous and those who did faced jail so she chickened out. I'd say saying it turned out it was inconvenient and life got in the way, hardly a reason to point and say "hypocrite, all hot air, outrageous, she's let them down"...

We don't have to analyse and criticise her every move.

retro:electro · 08-03-2017 07:36PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe she just had a doctor's appointment?

I mean, it's not as if attending some march was really dangerous and those who did faced jail so she chickened out. I'd say saying it turned out it was inconvenient and life got in the way, hardly a reason to point and say "hypocrite, all hot air, outrageous, she's let them down"...

We don't have to analyse and criticise her every move.

But she's riling people up all week and saying she's attending, even this morning she said she's attending. Then a few hours later "I wish I could have been ah the march today but I had a doctors appointment bla bla".. okay, well there's another one happening now? Why don't you attend that one? Instead of always of preaching from your social media echo chamber, why not actually actively involve yourself in some social action? No. Because that would require actually doing something outside the confines of a 140 character limit.

ivytwine · 08-03-2017 07:37PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Maybe she just had a doctor's appointment?

I mean, it's not as if attending some march was really dangerous and those who did faced jail so she chickened out. I'd say saying it turned out it was inconvenient and life got in the way, hardly a reason to point and say "hypocrite, all hot air, outrageous, she's let them down"...

We don't have to analyse and criticise her every move.

I agree to a certain extent, following this thread has kept me more au fait with her movements than I could have ever desired. But honestly the hypocrisy of calling for direct (violent) action on Twitter, and not being arsed to move a few appointments around for a day where she can actually partake in direct (nonviolent) action? Come on. There were two protests in Dublin today- people took time off work, inconvenienced themselves, small businesses shut their doors and lost themselves a day's revenue.

At the risk of identifying myself I know LON has visited Doonbeg. Principled she is not.

Social media has enabled a generation of people to get the warm fuzzies of pretending they're activists while ensuring they inconvenience themselves in no way whatsoever.

Put it this way. I'm glad Ireland won its independence in 1922 because we'd be fecking waiting these days.

RabbleRouser2k · 08-03-2017 07:38PM

ivytwine wrote: »

Sorry Humria, for dragging this back up, but I meant to reply to a few of your points and I never seem to be near a desktop these times.

Honestly it's this stuff that depresses me FAR more than anything about "rape culture". How do we counter this stuff? Women do have educational advantage at present, so maybe it will even itself out as more women move into the workplace. But it certainly won't be helped by a Tumblr-type feminism that casts women as victims.

This case was more about class than "rape culture", IMO.

Class, community-as Philip Zimbardo would say, 'understandable, but that doesn't mean forgivable'.

[/quote]

Absolutely agree. I think our judges, in sentencing especially, seem to have no idea of the impact of any violent crime on the victim. I would love for them to be given some kind of training on what the impact is on people in terms of trauma, family repercussions etc.

I remember during the swimming coach child molester trial a few years back how the judge, literally, told one victim to 'keep swimming, it's a good hobby, good form of exercise' despite the victim saying she had been unable to return to the sport on account of the trauma she suffered with abuse.
A bit of cop on was needed there-some empathy at least. But agreed, training is needed-even someone going on trial for getting a beating and bones broken would be traumatised in court.

I'm very careful about how I word this as I feel it may come across as trivialising sexual assault, but the problem IMO is that women are brainwashed from childhood to believe that rapists prowl the streets and laneways. Bloody hell, that's even what Red Riding Hood is really about. Lurid TV shows, films- they all contribute. We're also conditioned to believe it's absolutely the worst thing that can happen to a person and yeah, it probably is, but it's more likely to be done by someone you know, and people can survive and even thrive afterwards.

Also about the maturing of the female, the 'hood' for example has many connotations, menstruation, sexuality, the rush of lust that comes with puberty etc, as does the wolf. The wolf is seen as sexuality, sort of the 'don't let him consume you' is seen as 'don't let your sexual desires overtake you' etc. It's less of a rape analogy, from my reading, more of a lust desire thing.

Go for your bloody run, I mean that. Unless the guards have issued a warning about your area- like Killiney recently- you're statistically likely to be ok. I lived with a girl who went for runs most evenings; guess what, several years later, she's fine. In fact the only dodgy thing to happen when I lived with her is a creepy guy moved across from us and tried to inveigle himself into our house, inviting himself to house parties etc. If he had done something to one of us- and I think he was capable- he would have been a person known to us. To be fair to the guards, they were on it, they had their eye on him as soon as he moved in and actually came to the house on their own initiative and asked us had we seen any strange people in the area. He was gone almost instantly afterwards.

Likewise, for all the rumours of a supposed rapist wandering around my college campus, the only victims of violence by a stranger that I could definitively confirm were all male- all muggings.

At mine, the one I left, usually it was weapons or guns that were sent around-as in we got a fair few warnings about drugs and so on. Kind of lucky that there wasn't, when I was there, a rapist going round. That said, one or two of my friends did have their drinks spiked-very lucky friends were there to look after them and get em home.

The hysterics are wearying. If she genuinely goes to the worst case scenario when she hears someone is pregnant, she has a problem.

Well established by now-she assumes there is a physical 'force' or entity with regards to the 'patriarchy' but we all know, that doesn't have a physical embodyment (it doesn't even exist, it's just a hypothesis, not an established theory). No more than when one says 'I'm haunted by my demons' do we actually expect a winged, horned demon to come flying around the corner.

It's been established she is mentally ill, the problem lies in her not acknowledging it. As in genuinely acknowledging it-as soon as you do that, you realise you are not the victim.

Maria Steen is a nasty piece of work as she demonstrated when she was on with one of the women from TFMR a few years back. However she is extremely composed, articulate and unemotional. She needs to be met with similar. I don't actually see of anyone in the pro-choice side up to it at present.

They need to genuinely stop putting Colm O'Gorman on whenever it comes to debating this. He goes into histerics, loses his cool, and is just cringe to watch. It's like the repealers want to fail, at times. O'Gorman is just not suited to debate-he's tried running for politics (with the PD's) and failed-now it's like he hates democracy, so much so that he wants to bypass it entirely.
The problem arises if he meets a Maria Steen or someone else, he will come unhinged and lose the battle and the war.

That's genuinely galling tbh. I'm not going on strike today (I am wearing black, but that's most days). But there are people up and down Ireland who will be having awkward conversations with their bosses and making a genuine effort.

She could at least take a spin up to Cork and join a demonstration.

Apparently, you're mean to wear red...the clothing option hasn't been established there either. Get it together repealers. (Also quite surprising that the estimates are only puttin the strikers at a few hundred-and some are nothing how it's only the 'privileged white folks' who can take the strike action-and then it leaves it to other colleagues-ie mostly men-to handle the workload. Sort of defeats the entire purpose.

One could argue 'this day just proves we don't need women in the workplace at all'. I wouldn't take that stand mind, but an extreme individual could and would.

I really like Stefanie Preissner as well. I heard her on Nadine O'Regan's rather lovely show on Today FM and she came across as genuine and warm-hearted. I can identify with her too, she's working class, daughter of a single mother; that's where I'm coming from too.

https://twitter.com/StefPreissner/status/839422336633827328

That above quote said it all, really. She didn't strike, she went to work. She celebrated women's day, obviously, but not in a traditional sense-as in a few quotes on twitter, and an inspiring pic of her and her nana. It's really lovely, it's sort of why I admire her.

And her expressions with George Hook-I mean, seriously, priceless. Just comedy brilliance. HAs an understated warmth, and I like her fashion choices too. Yes, I'm a straight male, but there is something really stunning and beautiful when a woman can dress confidently, and look and feel confident.

I think my main gall with LON is increasingly class-based; for all her talk of privilege she's a very middle-class feminist. She's never had to work ****ty jobs or struggle financially- this colours your experience and your outlook- and frankly makes you grow up. I don't think she's ever truly been on the outside. One exchange on Twitter I recall from a long time ago was about the word "basic". I am not one of those "women must support other women at all costs" but I do not like judging women based on their tastes, hobbies etc- that's exactly what calling someone "basic" is, judging them for liking popular things. I don't think she grasped that doing that to other women is wrong and unfair. It reminded me, actually, of the boys I hung out with in school, and their constant gatekeeping regarding music.

Interestingly, according to her twitter, she was 'working' on that day. As in a conference call regarding adapting her book-with a woman.
Then went to the doctors, and her therapist, who happen to both be women. Interesting how they didn't 'strike' eh? Not as if they could afford to. Not living at home, for one thing....

The scandal of the Magdalenes, homes etc was not exclusively working class, but the working-class were disproportionally affected. That I think is the real reason for government inaction. I would love to see CAB seize the Bon Secours' assets, but it won't happen.

Michael Woods did a deal years ago, when education minister, with the Catholic Orders, with regards to the compensation based on sexual abuse and physical abuse of children within their care.

CAB couldn't do anything if they wanted to. Also, even if the order Woods put in place didn't exist, the Church could divert assets back to Rome, thus out of their juridiction.
They've done it before. (I'm totally spiritual, I really am, but it's so hearbreaking to see how those within the church, who wanted to do good, are tarnished by the horrors others did).
I remember my grandmother helped out an unwed mother when her and her husband were married. Gave her a room to stay, and helped out with the child when it was born. They, the child and mom, went to England after a few years-work related. USed to get letters for years, until her passing (the child still wrote tho).

The problem is that being pro-choice is almost by definition not warm or welcoming. Pro-lifers can claim the fluffy cute little babies in their pastel blankets. It's- the way I see it anyway- the realist, pragmatic solution to the fact that we humans have made a complete arse of one of our most basic functions.

Panti gave a very good warning when he said that the way the campaign is going won't play in the sticks. I think what the pro-choice side should do is point out the flaws and hypocrisies in the pro-life side; that unfortunately the pro-life position is not a workable one.

A very important point that has been forgotten in the euphoria of the result.

Yeah-it's sort of the same thing that happened with the marriage ref-some towns and villages had no 'YES' posters at all. I know I didn't see any back in my home town.
But the strong emotion that rode with that campaign was simple-love is love. So they had a very good backbone to the campaign-'we just want to allow those who are in love to get married'.

With the repealers-it's very difficult to get over the bridge of 'we don't want to allow women to kill babies' without resorting to the 'it's just a clump of cells' argument. Both come across as cold, and both come with stigmas and issues.

Some have been really blinkered and idiotic-there was one who took a picture of herself, in a repeal shirt, holding her niece-who's still a baby. IT sent out ALL the wrong messages, and as soon as I saw it, I was like 'what are you thinking?' but then again, she also took crying selfies. So I don't think she's as intelligent as she claims to be.

08-03-2017 07:39PM

anna080 wrote: »

But she's riling people up all week and saying she's attending, even this morning she said she's attending. Then a few hours later "I wish I could have been ah the march today but I had a doctors appointment bla bla".. okay, well there's another one happening now? Why don't you attend that one? Instead of always of preaching from your social media echo chamber, why not actually actively involve yourself in some social action? No. Because that would require actually doing something outside the confines of a 140 character limit.

"Social anxiety ".

The_Kew_Tour · 08-03-2017 07:39PM

Ya I just dont but it.

She could have waited for appointment till tomorrow even got it done yesterday.

Of all days.

Widdershins · 08-03-2017 08:22PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe she just had a doctor's appointment?

I mean, it's not as if attending some march was really dangerous and those who did faced jail so she chickened out. I'd say saying it turned out it was inconvenient and life got in the way, hardly a reason to point and say "hypocrite, all hot air, outrageous, she's let them down"...

We don't have to analyse and criticise her every move.

When the inconvenience of blocking city and airport roads is brought up, the usual retort is ''now imagine the inconvenience of travelling abroad for an abortion''. Yet a vocal advocate of the same event couldn't reschedule an appointment, or apparently attend the later march. Everyone else is chivvied to inconvenience themselves and their employers though?

''I can't march as I have a job to go to'' could have been the answer many people gave but did not.

RabbleRouser2k · 08-03-2017 08:54PM

Widdershins wrote: »

When the inconvenience of blocking city and airport roads is brought up, the usual retort is ''now imagine the inconvenience of travelling abroad for an abortion''. Yet a vocal advocate of the same event couldn't reschedule an appointment, or apparently attend the later march. Everyone else is chivvied to inconvenience themselves and their employers though?

''I can't march as I have a job to go to'' could have been the answer many people gave but did not.

There's been some real forehead slappers from the march in the US...

https://twitter.com/womensmarch/status/839545093510086657

https://twitter.com/womensmarch/status/839526756856000512

So Men can have babies now? OR is the Stork and 'found under a head of cabbage' story actually true?

08-03-2017 08:57PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There's been some real forehead slappers from the march in the US...

https://twitter.com/womensmarch/status/839545093510086657

https://twitter.com/womensmarch/status/839526756856000512

So Men can have babies now? OR is the Stork and 'found under a head of cabbage' story actually true?

Yes men can have babies. If they have a uterus. It's not your business how they identify.

RabbleRouser2k · 08-03-2017 09:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes men can have babies. If they have a uterus. It's not your business how they identify.

The women's council of ireland states that women 'are those with a uterus'...

I said nothing about how people 'identify'...because I identify as a lamp post...so jokes on you buddy.

08-03-2017 09:08PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

The women's council of ireland states that women 'are those with a uterus'...

I said nothing about how people 'identify'...because I identify as a lamp post...so jokes on you buddy.

They'd want to be careful with those microaggressions.

jameorahiely · 08-03-2017 09:18PM

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

There's been some real forehead slappers from the march in the US...

https://twitter.com/womensmarch/status/839545093510086657

https://twitter.com/womensmarch/status/839526756856000512

So Men can have babies now? OR is the Stork and 'found under a head of cabbage' story actually true?

Yes men can give birth to babies now, do keep up with the ways of the modern world :pac:

Grayson · 08-03-2017 10:04PM

Widdershins wrote: »

When the inconvenience of blocking city and airport roads is brought up, the usual retort is ''now imagine the inconvenience of travelling abroad for an abortion''. Yet a vocal advocate of the same event couldn't reschedule an appointment, or apparently attend the later march. Everyone else is chivvied to inconvenience themselves and their employers though?

''I can't march as I have a job to go to'' could have been the answer many people gave but did not.

I didn't go because I had an interview today (Fingers crossed). I rescheduled from last week because I've been sick for a few weeks.

People have actual reasons for not being able to go to something.

b_mac2 · 08-03-2017 10:07PM

Grayson wrote: »

I didn't go because I had an interview today (Fingers crossed). I rescheduled from last week because I've been sick for a few weeks.

People have actual reasons for not being able to go to something.

You would be the type of guy to go to that.

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Comments