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

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

Like I said earlier on in the thread, porn aimed at men has far more diversity as far as what is considered "attractive" than fashion ever had. And that's hardly a great yardstick to judge any industry by. Too skinny, too fat, too curvy, not curvy enough, too old, too young, too black, too white, "real women", or not, all atomic level bullshíte from the fashion business and it makes billions from encouraging insecurity and in plain sight with society's support.

The reason models are thin is not because it's a display of beauty or attraction, but simply because clothes hang better, because it's a display of the clothes.

py2006

ivytwine wrote: »

I think it's important to point out that not all feminists buy into this brand wholesale.

Accordingly to LON, anyone who disagrees with her is a trolling, pathetic, woman hating WHITE male.

I don't think she would be able get her head around women and feminists being critical of her.

RabbleRouser2k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89rpTRZYp4c

Interesting analysis.

please helpThank YOU

Shannon757 wrote: »

Isn't Deliverance the one with the Duelling Banjos?

he was good on the Banjos that was sum movie

Ben Gadot

anna080 wrote: »

If she had genuine appointments then why make out all week that she was going? If it was a consultants appointment she would have had that letter for weeks/months. She also said she had a work meeting about her book, again another thing that wasn't just sprung on her that morning.
So why pretend she was going? "I'm preparing for the march by not washing my hair", "meet me at O Connell's Bridge at 2pm", etc.. She riled people up to take the day off work to get them to attend and then was a no show herself. In other words, she got her followers to do her dirty work for her.

I'm not bothered discussing her health but I think her absence highlighted a general issue that some activists online have.

On the one hand you have the likes of Panti Bliss who almost had his position as a figurehead thrust upon him by others, and thankfully it turned that he was comfortable being that person. He was comfortable being the mouthpiece.

But with others such as Louise, for all their talk online, I get the impression that they're not all that comfortable being the one at the front of the line and taking the public hits so to speak.

And that's fine, not everyone is comfortable with that level of spotlight (I know I'm one of them), but it will inevitably come upon you when you blow yourself up to such a level online.

It's like demanding the platform but not wanting to accept the drawbacks of taking it.

RabbleRouser2k

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The repeal march was feminism done right. Men and women marching in solidarity, at a protest aimed against the state's institutions and leadership.

If LoN types had their way, the march would instead have focused on using antagonistic and inflammatory anti-male rhetoric such as "men oppress women" (as opposed to specifically the men who sit in Dail Eireann, "if men could get pregnant we'd have abortion on demand legalised in five seconds", "why do men think they have the right to control our bodies", etc etc etc.

This is *specifically* the issue I have with modern SJW-style feminism. I'm actually ecstatic that yesterday's march was so civilised, well attended, powerful and inclusive on an issue regarding womens' rights, because it gives us an opportunity to actually examine and reflect on what a genuine equality movement could look like if it didn't include all of the poisonous "patriarchy" bullsh!t from SJW-feminism, as in "all men oppress all women, straight white males are literally hitler, etc".

The only time it slightly veered into that territory was when some idiots on Twitter attacked them for using the word "women" and they had to respond with "we recognise that not all people with vaginas and uteri are women, so we're revising our previous statement..." which is exactly the kind of overly-sensitive language policing bullsh!t that causes most feminist movements to literally haemorrhage moderate supporters leaving only the radical echo chamber behind as a shadow of what could have been.

If more events targeting the issues facing women in our society were run along the lines of yesterday's march, I for one would be behind them absolutely 100%. It had a great atmosphere - determined but friendly, welcoming, warm and good-spirited. I shudder to think what it might have looked like with people like LoN and Una Mullally at the helm.

Normally I would agree, but then again, there were people noting how, with all talk of solidarity, you had folks saying 'ah will you look at her fat arms'...yes, women.

I imagine if UM or LoN were in charge-it wouldn't have happened. Suffering is what LoN does-but actually make your voice heard...nope.
The last thing LoN was involved in was the 'slut' walk in UCD, and I don't think she even turned up for that either.

hatrickpatrick

The repeal march was feminism done right. Men and women marching in solidarity, at a protest aimed against the state's institutions and leadership.

If LoN types had their way, the march would instead have focused on using antagonistic and inflammatory anti-male rhetoric such as "men oppress women" (as opposed to specifically the men who sit in Dail Eireann, "if men could get pregnant we'd have abortion on demand legalised in five seconds", "why do men think they have the right to control our bodies", etc etc etc.

This is *specifically* the issue I have with modern SJW-style feminism. I'm actually ecstatic that yesterday's march was so civilised, well attended, powerful and inclusive on an issue regarding womens' rights, because it gives us an opportunity to actually examine and reflect on what a genuine equality movement could look like if it didn't include all of the poisonous "patriarchy" bullsh!t from SJW-feminism, as in "all men oppress all women, straight white males are literally hitler, etc".

The only time it slightly veered into that territory was when some idiots on Twitter attacked them for using the word "women" and they had to respond with "we recognise that not all people with vaginas and uteri are women, so we're revising our previous statement..." which is exactly the kind of overly-sensitive language policing bullsh!t that causes most feminist movements to literally haemorrhage moderate supporters leaving only the radical echo chamber behind as a shadow of what could have been.

If more events targeting the issues facing women in our society were run along the lines of yesterday's march, I for one would be behind them absolutely 100%. It had a great atmosphere - determined but friendly, welcoming, warm and good-spirited. I shudder to think what it might have looked like with people like LoN and Una Mullally at the helm.

deaddonkey15

I think the doctor's appointment stuff is well worth discussing. The one day, which she knew of months in advance, where women in support of repealing were to strike from work and make their voices heard Louise O'Neill is a no show. A meeting for her movie (technically working?) and a doctors appointment kept her from showing actual real support to the repeal campaign instead of faux outrage on Twitter. Sure it might have been inconvenient to postpone her meeting and appointment but isn't that what the day was all about? They caused enough inconvenience to others in Dublin city centre. I've seen the signs about women using a holiday day for this march. Others inconvenienced by walking out of work, students walking out of college all to show support for the women inconvenienced by having to travel to the UK to get a legal abortion because that's what people do when they genuinely care enough. As someone else posted here, there's a woman willing to walk from Cork to Dublin on behalf of her daughter because she cares strongly enough.

Louise O'Neill, when it comes to practicing what she preaches couldn't be bothered. She'll write about how she feels the pain of hundreds of years of oppression as a female but won't bus it up to Dublin to do something real? Her attempts at justifying it by saying those she interacted with on the day were all women (as if that's relevant) is just an insult to the women that made an effort to turn up and an insult to the women that have to travel overseas for abortions. She wouldn't miss an opportunity to promote her books however, you can be sure of that.

It just sums her up for me really - she's just a childish attention seeker. I've seen a few posts here questioning her mental state and whilst I don't think it's right to do that I definitely think that she lives in her own little bubble. It's quite fascinating really.

The Rape of Lucretia

mzungu wrote: »

True. I think when different topics like privilege or various different movements were discussed, it was quite interesting and there were some good discussions. However, I would agree with Wibbs, when things verge into the personal rather than discussing actual content, then it does go a bit off centre for my liking..

Personal is fair game. So much of her oeuvre is personal. This is the seam she mines. So any comment in response to that is no intrusion on a world she has chose to open to us loyal followers.

mzungu

Widdershins wrote: »

You are ignoring the bulk of the thread being about politics and feminism. Like it would have got to 200 pages if it was all about the woman in the title.:D

True. I think when different topics like privilege or various different movements were discussed, it was quite interesting and there were some good discussions. However, I would agree with Wibbs, when things verge into the personal rather than discussing actual content, then it does go a bit off centre for my liking..

ivytwine

Wibbs wrote: »

*partial facepalm that feeds the monster*

Though as an aside, I did see a link earlier in this thread to her blog/article/Twatter? where she went makeup free for "The Cause™" and looked way nicer to my eyes. Then again I actually prefer women makeup free. It's maybe a weird glitch with me and being me probably is, but I really prefer the no makeup thing.

Indeed if I was to imagine myself as a woman, the very first thing I'd be pointing my J'Accuse missives and bullshíte seeking missiles at would be the fashion industry and how it is one of the biggest piss takes aimed at women and their wallets, which on a daily basis engenders insecurity and body shaming, hell women shaming and is one of the most women oppressive forces there is.

Like I said earlier on in the thread, porn aimed at men has far more diversity as far as what is considered "attractive" than fashion ever had. And that's hardly a great yardstick to judge any industry by. Too skinny, too fat, too curvy, not curvy enough, too old, too young, too black, too white, "real women", or not, all atomic level bullshíte from the fashion business and it makes billions from encouraging insecurity and in plain sight with society's support.

I can't argue with that. (This is also coming from someone who does like their fashion and make up btw). There was a huge backlash against fashion and make up in the 70s and 80s, and then there was a backlash against the backlash, pretty much. My mother would have run in those circles back then and she said the kind of hectoring you got made you want to put on a dress and tons of make up. I have a very complex relationship with it all, like a lot of women I suppose, but I guess I'm lucky as I'm an "acceptable" body type. But it's an industry designed to make you feel like you're not enough no matter what you look like. Yet I do enjoy parts of it, I follow an Israeli make up artist for example who creates actual works of art on people's eyelids. I do enjoy the aesthetics I suppose. And I adore fabrics, although as I get older I find myself increasingly drawn to interiors. It's also kind of disregarded as frivolous and shallow, when you can say the same about traditionally male hobbies and sports (e.g. Soccer having entire TV channels devoted to it, whereas people bitch that Xpose is on for half an hour).

Most people IMO look better with a small amount of well applied slap, but we'll agree to disagree there. One thing that scares me actually is the level of contouring and filters young girls are using on social media. If you look back of pictures of me when I was 16- same with my friends- you'll see we were fresh faced, we probably thought we were wearing tons of make up but you can barely see any- and what you can see is far from expertly applied. Even look at pictures of the Spice Girls in their heyday and it's striking. Whereas my cousins are done up like Kardashians. It's actually a bit sad I think. We were just doing it for fun, but this all needs to be perfect for online documentation.

RayM

Widdershins wrote: »

You are ignoring the bulk of the thread being about politics and feminism. Like it would have got to 200 pages if it was all about the woman in the title.:D

I'm not. I generally see more mentions of her on AH than on Twitter.

The Rape of Lucretia

Wibbs wrote: »

*partial facepalm that feeds the monster*

Though as an aside, I did see a link earlier in this thread to her blog/article/Twatter? where she went makeup free for "The Cause™" and looked way nicer to my eyes. Then again I actually prefer women makeup free. It's maybe a weird glitch with me and being me probably is, but I really prefer the no makeup thing.

Indeed if I was to imagine myself as a woman, the very first thing I'd be pointing my J'Accuse missives and bullshíte seeking missiles at would be the fashion industry and how it is one of the biggest piss takes aimed at women and their wallets, which on a daily basis engenders insecurity and body shaming, hell women shaming and is one of the most women oppressive forces there is.

Like I said earlier on in the thread, porn aimed at men has far more diversity as far as what is considered "attractive" than fashion ever had. And that's hardly a great yardstick to judge any industry by. Too skinny, too fat, too curvy, not curvy enough, too old, too young, too black, too white, "real women", or not, all atomic level bullshíte from the fashion business and it makes billions from encouraging insecurity and in plain sight with society's support.

Agree entirely. Have never seen a woman who looked better with any make up. The best thing any woman could do if they are concerned about looking well is never to buy another cents worth of the stuff. Beats me where they get they idea it benefits them - surely it is the greatest validation ever of the power of advertising - and one that must be verging on fraud.

Gee, what a great thread to be discussing women's make up.

Wibbs

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

She's quite a doll in some photos.

*partial facepalm that feeds the monster*

Though as an aside, I did see a link earlier in this thread to her blog/article/Twatter? where she went makeup free for "The Cause™" and looked way nicer to my eyes. Then again I actually prefer women makeup free. It's maybe a weird glitch with me and being me probably is, but I really prefer the no makeup thing.

Indeed if I was to imagine myself as a woman, the very first thing I'd be pointing my J'Accuse missives and bullshíte seeking missiles at would be the fashion industry and how it is one of the biggest piss takes aimed at women and their wallets, which on a daily basis engenders insecurity and body shaming, hell women shaming and is one of the most women oppressive forces there is.

Like I said earlier on in the thread, porn aimed at men has far more diversity as far as what is considered "attractive" than fashion ever had. And that's hardly a great yardstick to judge any industry by. Too skinny, too fat, too curvy, not curvy enough, too old, too young, too black, too white, "real women", or not, all atomic level bullshíte from the fashion business and it makes billions from encouraging insecurity and in plain sight with society's support.

Widdershins

RayM wrote: »

It's bizarre. But, sure if it makes them happy...

According to Twitter, I follow around 100 people who follow her. I see a lot more mentions of her on AH than on Twitter.

You are ignoring the bulk of the thread being about politics and feminism. Like it would have got to 200 pages if it was all about the woman in the title.:D

RayM

Grayson wrote: »

Guys, seriously, you need to rethink your lives. This is now nearly 250 pages long and you're posting about her doctors appointments (or lack of them). Step back from the computers for a while.

It's bizarre. But, sure if it makes them happy...

According to Twitter, I follow around 100 people who follow her. I see a lot more mentions of her on AH than on Twitter.

Widdershins

Grayson wrote: »

Guys, seriously, you need to rethink your lives. This is now nearly 250 pages long and you're posting about her doctors appointments (or lack of them). Step back from the computers for a while.

Funnily enough I manage to contribute my time and effort to activism through number of worthy causes and commenting on this thread hasn't stopped me. Which is more than can be said for the public mouthpiece, blogger and newspaper columnist for the Repeal Strike

FishOnABike

There are some spirits you can believe in.

Sweetemotion

Wibbs wrote: »

Well I can see that bit, but TBH the whole docs appointment bit and nitpicking over it kinda escapes me. Yeah I get the deal considering the social media support stuff not being followed through, but C'mon. Bigger fish to fry IMH.

One hopes that was tongue in cheek and/or an attempt at irony(the latter a first for "feminist" blogistas) and TBH I suspect it was the former. The people who reckoned it was spirits? How many rubber rooms do we have on standby?

In other news: Thank the gods I don't have Twatter. I'm mad enough without being exposed to more mad.

Fair enough Wibbs, sorry for the cheap shot Grayson.

The Rape of Lucretia

Sweetemotion wrote: »

She's quite a doll in some photos.

ivytwine

Wibbs wrote: »

Well I can see that bit, but TBH the whole docs appointment bit and nitpicking over it kinda escapes me. Yeah I get the deal considering the social media support stuff not being followed through, but C'mon. Bigger fish to fry IMH.

One hopes that was tongue in cheek and/or an attempt at irony(the latter a first for "feminist" blogistas) and TBH I suspect it was the former. The people who reckoned it was spirits? How many rubber rooms do we have on standby?

In other news: Thank the gods I don't have Twatter. I'm mad enough without being exposed to more mad.

Deleted mine, great decision.

I do think you're right, there are bigger fish to fry. I wonder partly if there's an element of attention seeking going on with the non-appearance. I guess if it shows anything, it shows that you can be fawned over despite not giving a cause any practical help or action, as long as you talk a good game. That does frustrate me.

Also, at the risk of sounding petulant, Grayson, you were the one bringing up consultants etc in an effort to defend Louise.

As for the spirits...

Wibbs

Sweetemotion wrote: »

The Grayson, has spoken.

Stop. With your condescending self appointed attitude of grander.

Well I can see that bit, but TBH the whole docs appointment bit and nitpicking over it kinda escapes me. Yeah I get the deal considering the social media support stuff not being followed through, but C'mon. Bigger fish to fry IMH.

Sweetemotion wrote:

Her response "surrounded by spirits. We are doing Gods work"

One hopes that was tongue in cheek and/or an attempt at irony(the latter a first for "feminist" blogistas) and TBH I suspect it was the former. The people who reckoned it was spirits? How many rubber rooms do we have on standby?

In other news: Thank the gods I don't have Twatter. I'm mad enough without being exposed to more mad.

Sweetemotion

Apparently people believe, these are spirits around her???

Her response "surrounded by spirits. We are doing Gods work"

It's a heavily edited picture and because some crazy people think these sparkles just appeared from nowhere, she lets them think that.

This lady is clearly nuts.

Sweetemotion

Grayson wrote: »

Guys, seriously, you need to rethink your lives. This is now nearly 250 pages long and you're posting about her doctors appointments (or lack of them). Step back from the computers for a while.

The Grayson, has spoken.

Stop. With your condescending self appointed attitude of grander.

How about you. Rethink your life and step away from the computer?

ivytwine

Grayson wrote: »

Guys, seriously, you need to rethink your lives. This is now nearly 250 pages long and you're posting about her doctors appointments (or lack of them). Step back from the computers for a while.

Sure isn't this the point of boards. You could say that about any topic here!

She bares herself regularly on social media. No one would know anything about her appointments if she didn't share them.

I think the version of feminism she espouses is very worthy of discussion. I have, personally, tried to keep it as far as I can to that. This brand of feminism is lazy, unthinking, glorying in victimhood, impractical, consumerist and middle class focussed, totally regurgitated from the United States, and as a woman, a survivor of sexual violence and a person who grew up in Irish poverty, I think it's important to point out that not all feminists buy into this brand wholesale.

To reiterate also- you can't call yourself an activist if you're unwilling to take any action that inconveniences you slightly. There is a woman willing to walk 200 km until she has to be put in a wheelchair for her cause. And there's another who can't call her doctor and change an appointment for hers. Who is more committed? Who deserves greater attention in the media? (Yes- the causes are not the same, before that's pointed out).

Grayson

Guys, seriously, you need to rethink your lives. This is now nearly 250 pages long and you're posting about her doctors appointments (or lack of them). Step back from the computers for a while.

Outlaw Pete

ivytwine wrote: »

Maybe I am just being nasty....

Ah don't worry about it..

Sure haven't you heard, being a 'Nasty Woman' is all the rage.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/839808692409237504

RabbleRouser2k

ivytwine wrote: »

Those kind of attitudes really weren't uncommon in the older generation, and many judges still seem to harbour them. I mean going to court is stressful enough when you are there with financial matters etc (so I've heard!). Can imagine how much worse it is when you're a victim of violent crime.

Plus it's all the more disturbing when I remember that there was a judge in power, at the time, who was later arrested for posession of child pornograpy-Judge Curtin. His case collapsed due to a warrant used being a day out of date-and so any evidence obtained was thrown out.

I would imagine that those attitudes are still there, tbh-they just evolved and changed slightly.

You've been reading Angela Carter! It seems to be a definite stranger danger thing in my view.

And a bit of Laura Mulvey too-I'm a sucker for reading anything about meaning and story origins. Ditto movies and so on.

Yep, she's a class act! As for how she handled George- perfection.

Probably one of the finest moments on Irish TV ever-if you'd had LoN there, or Alison whatever her name is (not the comic, some reporter) they would have lost their cool, called him all sorts of names, and it would just be awful. She crossed the divide, and made a hilarious memorable moment on TV. Loved it myself. Also, she's fluent in Irish...she's probably one of the most intelligent Irish women out there at the moment, and she doesn't brag about it. (I do savage some IRish celebs a lot, but I sing the praises of the smart ones-I give credo where credo is due. And she gets credo in my eyes...dear God I sound like one of those teenage boys who's obsessed over 'insert celebrity name here').

Fair play to your granny. I've no time for the church at all frankly, and while I would excuse younger people for not knowing about the Michael Woods deal, older people who take an interest in these affairs should know. As for Micheal Martin pontificating while his govt presided over that- absolutely sickening.

My grandfather was involved too

. Yeah, they were two individuals who were total-non conformists. Like, they went to mass, worked hard, but were very caring and loving individuals. Genuinely, I doubt they had a bad word to say about too many. At a time when many would shun folks from their door, my grandparents would invite em in-the unwed moms, Traveller family's (feed em and give em their dinner) and they also took over looking after a niece when her dad was unable to-he had a few children, but essentially had one too many-so my grandparents looked after their eldest.
They were great people tbh. Open minded, willing to learn, always evolving. It's why I try to look at all angles of something, I can be a pessimist when people are seeing the positives, and an optimist when others are pessimistic.

I shall gloss over that particular person completely, but let's just say when I saw a friend, a really gentle person, take against her and her recent antics, I knew it was bad.

It was shocking, and infuriating-it sent the wrong message to everyone, and what it sent to young girls and women-it's so dangerous, and so abhorrent, that I genuinely am more horrified with each passing day thinking about it.

The middle ground in my view is that to keep pointing out that we do have abortion in Ireland already, it just takes place in the UK. There are loads of pro-choice arguments to be made without resorting to that one.

Exactly-it's not like one is stuck on a planet where they are alone and pregnant-there are options.

One of the worst things to happen to the Savita Hallapenavar case-outside of the loss of her life, obviously- was how the pro-choice people twisted and mangled it to their needs-including LoN. Reporters jumped on claims without evidence to back it up-some leaping on reporting information that days later was found to be false. They didn't even allow the family to grieve-they instead wanted a narrative.
So claims became insulting and incendiary, pushing an agenda.
You can usually find Ivana Bacik hanging around those as well-she tried to force abortion into the IRish constitution using the cases of three women-no referendum or vote required by her, no-just shove it in there.

ivytwine

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

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.

Those kind of attitudes really weren't uncommon in the older generation, and many judges still seem to harbour them. I mean going to court is stressful enough when you are there with financial matters etc (so I've heard!). Can imagine how much worse it is when you're a victim of violent crime.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

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.

You've been reading Angela Carter! It seems to be a definite stranger danger thing in my view.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

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.

Yep, she's a class act! As for how she handled George- perfection.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

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).

Fair play to your granny. I've no time for the church at all frankly, and while I would excuse younger people for not knowing about the Michael Woods deal, older people who take an interest in these affairs should know. As for Micheal Martin pontificating while his govt presided over that- absolutely sickening.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

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.

I shall gloss over that particular person completely, but let's just say when I saw a friend, a really gentle person, take against her and her recent antics, I knew it was bad.

The middle ground in my view is that to keep pointing out that we do have abortion in Ireland already, it just takes place in the UK. There are loads of pro-choice arguments to be made without resorting to that one.

Grayson wrote: »

About the bragging on social media, I kinda agree/disagree with you. The whole point of protesting is to create awareness so it's weird to protest and not talk about it. I do get what you mean though. You see it on both sides of the political spectrum. People who post up stupid political memes and sh1te like that are incredibly annoying.

And on the subject of a doctors appointment, she could be sick. It might be with a consultant and she's had to wait for the appointment. Maybe it's actually an outpatients appointment. I've had two GP visits in the last three weeks and x-rays for this chest infection.
People here are saying that she hasn't got an excuse rather than thinking that if she's missing the march she must have a really good excuse.

Yeesh that sounds like a nasty infection, get well soon.

I see your point and while social media is great for seeing what's going on across the world, I have found the loudest voices- as you say- the most irritating and the least likely to actually take any action. Even if you want to go to the other side of things, there are tons of pro-lifers shouting the odds on social media, but like, five, turned out at NUIG yesterday to counter-protest. I already suspected LON of being one of those "all talk, no action" people, but yesterday confirms it.

Consultant appointments don't just happen. And consultants don't drop things at a day's notice. I've known people with longstanding medical conditions who get cancellations, but even at that, never with a day's notice. If she had said this all along, like "oh no, I really want to be there but I have a appointment that I can't miss!" I don't think even the most vehement of her critics here would object. It was this thing of "oh I'm DEFINITELY going! Can't wait! Oh actually..." that has riled people.

Maybe I am just being nasty, but to me it seems like she couldn't be bothered moving appointments around, couldn't be bothered to get into Cork- there was a protest there too! and when you consider some of the quite literally incendiary nature of her tweets, it just paints her as a hypocrite. People did make sacrifices to protest yesterday- people with far more demands on their time.

Compare and contrast to Vera Twomey. That's the lengths some will go for what they believe in.

Dravokivich

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

It's LoN, if she has a head cold, she tells her users about it (not joking, check her feed). Ditto her every move or thought.
So I sincerely doubt she is sick. She's said she was gonna 'laze at home' so no, no I don't buy into a chest infection at all. (Might be something to do with getting the contraceptive pill, maybe). She also posted about getting free stuff in the post. Wonder if the postman/ post woman (have a post woman round here) decided to take the day off? No irony there?

The laze at home comment was about the day before as a means of getting herself set up for yesterday.

Whatever about her being a no show, does it really matter why she didn't? She's just trying to promote herself as some sort of product, but it's all really hollow. No point getting caught up in it.