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; } } }

Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Ralf and Florian

She presented a documentary on rape culture during the week on RTE which focused on the issue of sexual assault against females. It's interesting to note her response to a (male) follower would tweeted that it would be hilarious to see a remake of Deliverance featuring "pissed up dickheads on a drunken stag". For anyone who's not seen the movie Deliverance its about three city dwellers who go for a weekend fishing to what could be described as a backwoods community. Central to the storyline is when they are held captive and one of them raped by a bunch of rednecks.

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/794195404145442816

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Widdershins

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

please helpThank YOU

Shannon757 wrote: »

Isn't Deliverance the one with the Duelling Banjos?

he was good on the Banjos that was sum movie

RabbleRouser2k

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

Interesting analysis.

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.

[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.

please helpThank YOU

If people think there is a rape rape culture that is very dangerous idea to spread that is like the people of Massachusetts in 1692 on the witch culture the salem witch trials hanging people in executions

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

That's decidedly arguable and personally I think it highly spurious. It's far more about economics of aspiration and the economics of measurement(it's easier to make clothes for a clothes rack). Never mind the obvious consideration that model type bodyshapes are a tiny minority of almost exclusively young women, yet that's the platform to sell average women clothing? Its akin to a car manufacturer like Ferrari advertising two seater roadsters with no boots as family cars. Never mind that the trend since the 60's has, save for a couple of blips, been towards ever more emaciated(plus sized models are a current fashion and virtue signalling to "real women"). The "clothes hang better" IMH is fashion industry BS.

Widdershins

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..

I've no interest in reading how other posters rate Louise's looks, or scrutinising the bump in the crotch of her adult babygro, but I do think the non appearance at the repeal strike was worth at least a brief mention. If you're taking a leadership role in a 'movement' you have to act like one and be dependable. It wouldn't have been dragged out if a couple of posters hadn't kept throwing in implausible reasons for it.

silverharp

Wibbs wrote: »

That's decidedly arguable and personally I think it highly spurious. It's far more about economics of aspiration and the economics of measurement(it's easier to make clothes for a clothes rack). Never mind the obvious consideration that model type bodyshapes are a tiny minority of almost exclusively young women, yet that's the platform to sell average women clothing? Its akin to a car manufacturer like Ferrari advertising two seater roadsters with no boots as family cars. Never mind that the trend since the 60's has, save for a couple of blips, been towards ever more emaciated(plus sized models are a current fashion and virtue signalling to "real women"). The "clothes hang better" IMH is fashion industry BS.

indeed aspiration, the appeal to the male vanity is to see for example a Ford focus (no offense) driving around the Amalfi coast with no wife and kids in sight when it reality the car will spend most of its time in office parks, supermarkets and school runs :pac:

please helpThank YOU

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

If people think there is a rape rape culture that is very dangerous idea to spread that is like the people of Massachusetts in 1692 on the witch culture the salem witch trials hanging people in executions

I would love ask Louise o Neill have we a got witch hunt culture and just take people at there word hearsay mass hysteria

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

That's decidedly arguable and personally I think it highly spurious. It's far more about economics of aspiration and the economics of measurement(it's easier to make clothes for a clothes rack). Never mind the obvious consideration that model type bodyshapes are a tiny minority of almost exclusively young women, yet that's the platform to sell average women clothing? Its akin to a car manufacturer like Ferrari advertising two seater roadsters with no boots as family cars. Never mind that the trend since the 60's has, save for a couple of blips, been towards ever more emaciated(plus sized models are a current fashion and virtue signalling to "real women"). The "clothes hang better" IMH is fashion industry BS.

So you think the fashion industry has some dark inner force to get women to look waif like and gamine and like little boys, and it's not simply about wanting clothes to be distinct from the figure?

You'd think after 5 decades of people rejecting the Twiggy look, watching youngsters put up posters of actresses to their bedroom walls, seeing young men drool over Jenna Jameson and young women look to the Kardashians more than the Kate Mosses...if it had the agenda you believe it has, the penny might have dropped long ago...

Widdershins

Deleted User wrote: »

So you think the fashion industry has some dark inner force to get women to look waif like and gamine and like little boys, and it's not simply about wanting clothes to be distinct from the figure?

You'd think after 5 decades of people rejecting the Twiggy look, watching youngsters put up posters of actresses to their bedroom walls, seeing young men drool over Jenna Jameson and young women look to the Kardashians more than the Kate Mosses...if it had the agenda you believe it has, the penny might have dropped long ago...

I agree with you on this. It's just convenience, they same the same standards (pattern sizing) for the garments, it's simpler and more efficient and economical. It's as weird as anything and it's not a healthy world for a model but I don't think there's more to it than that. Their Diffusion ranges are for the more normal sized people.

And, this is a separate comment, not to Conor74: The no makeup selfies are not usually truly makeup free, that's what we call ''No Makeup Makeup''. Basically it's flesh toned makeup, or within a shade or two of skin tone, lip tone etc. When you know what to look for you can spot it in those selfies. I agree with the poster who said most women look better with a little bit of makeup. I don't like the extreme contouring that's popular at the moment.

*asking myself how I ended up commenting about this when I thought I was here to talk about rape culture*

Roger Hassenforder

Interesting take on why skinny models are used:

http://www.femininebeauty.info/skinny-fashion-models

(The skinny appearance resembles adolescent males, which (predominantly gay men) designers find attractive).
Apparently

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

So you think the fashion industry has some dark inner force to get women to look waif like and gamine and like little boys, and it's not simply about wanting clothes to be distinct from the figure?

no "dark inner force" required. It's a hard to reach aspiration, with a large side order of insecurity that keeps the tills ringing. Ditto for "anti ageing" creams fronted by 20 year olds, hair dyes promoted by women with extensions etc.

if it had the agenda you believe it has, the penny might have dropped long ago...

The pennies drop in their droves, right into their tills. The agenda is simply making boatloads of cash and keeping those boats coming in and the "twiggy look" clearly works or you'd have fat rather than skinny women parading on catwalks. The market is very finely tweaked.

Roger Hassenforder wrote:

(The skinny appearance resembles adolescent males, which (predominantly gay men) designers find attractive).
Apparently

I don't buy that as a primary reason TBH. More an "explanation" after the fact. If "real women" sold, then that's what would be promoted and indeed as people in the west are getting fatter, that market has been looked at and the model has been tweaked, albeit in a small scale compared to the whole. It just doesn't sell as well. But anyway...

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

So you think the fashion industry has some dark inner force to get women to look waif like and gamine and like little boys, and it's not simply about wanting clothes to be distinct from the figure?

You'd think after 5 decades of people rejecting the Twiggy look, watching youngsters put up posters of actresses to their bedroom walls, seeing young men drool over Jenna Jameson and young women look to the Kardashians more than the Kate Mosses...if it had the agenda you believe it has, the penny might have dropped long ago...

I see where you are coming from but they aren't selling an image to men but to women. Just by the fact alone that the catwalk model is rare and desired by the fashion industry is the cache even though a catwalk model probably wouldn't do well in a miss universe competition say. So it has very little to do with what the average man thinks because who cares what they think right?

ivytwine

I think it's important to note that the stuff you see on the catwalks is purely aspirational- what you see on the high streets is what the vast, vast majority of western women end up buying. It's a distillation of high fashion. It actually is similar to a Ferrari versus a Ford Focus. The aspiration for women is to be ultra slim still, and just because many women don't actually fit that mould doesn't mean the aspiration isn't there. There is fashion for plus sized women, but I doubt high fashion houses will ever embrace it beyond lip service.

Widdershins

I wonder how the people who actually attended the repeal strike would feel to hear ''people have actual reasons for not going to things''. Like the ones who could have earned a day's pay or not sacrificed a day's holiday, they might have got a babysitter or gone despite being sick.

Vela

ivytwine wrote: »

I think it's important to note that the stuff you see on the catwalks is purely aspirational- what you see on the high streets is what the vast, vast majority of western women end up buying. It's a distillation of high fashion. It actually is similar to a Ferrari versus a Ford Focus. The aspiration for women is to be ultra slim still, and just because many women don't actually fit that mould doesn't mean the aspiration isn't there. There is fashion for plus sized women, but I doubt high fashion houses will ever embrace it beyond lip service.

You know what bugs me re: the whole perception about size in fashion? You have the typical fashion model size of size 4 and under. And then it jumps up to size 16+ for 'plus size'. There's no representation of the 'in-between', i.e. sizes 8 - 14. I recall reading about one particular 'plus size' model (I forget her name now) who had to go from a 12 to a size 16 to get jobs. And that was after battling an eating disorder for years trying to stay at a size 4. Imagine that, she went from having to lose weight to model, to having to gain weight to model. Crazy.

Oh and then there's the whole 'curvy' thing. People don't seem to understand the meaning of that word. The plus size women you see in fashion ALWAYS have a distinct hourglass or pear shape. They're naturally curvy. And yet they say they're representing all plus size women. They sure as fcuk aren't. Trust me, a size 16 on someone who carries weight on their mid-section looks very different to someone who maintains a narrow waist at that size. For example, I'm a size 12 and if I was a size 16 I'd be a walking balloon on legs. But I've a friend who easily carries weight at a size 16 because it sits in all of the right places.

As for the point Wibbs made on makeup, I've no problem with anything that makes a woman feel more confident about herself. Some women go a bit overboard for my liking, but that's none of my business. Confidence goes a long way. But re: debating how LON looks - I couldn't give two sh1tzers. You can't polish a turd of a personality.

Vela

Widdershins wrote: »

And, this is a separate comment, not to Conor74: The no makeup selfies are not usually truly makeup free, that's what we call ''No Makeup Makeup''. Basically it's flesh toned makeup, or within a shade or two of skin tone, lip tone etc. When you know what to look for you can spot it in those selfies. I agree with the poster who said most women look better with a little bit of makeup. I don't like the extreme contouring that's popular at the moment.

I'm all for 'no makeup makeup', it's actually my everyday makeup. I don't get that contouring sh1te at all. 10 mins in the morning and I'm done.

please helpThank YOU

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

If people think there is a rape rape culture that is very dangerous idea to spread that is like the people of Massachusetts in 1692 on the witch culture the salem witch trials hanging people in executions

this a very dangerous time for men and women living in Ireland with Louise o Neill rape culture all you need is a liar and mob = recipe for disaster and now you could have innocent man /women boy/girl being serious injury or even Death our Jail our suicide by this hysteria and this will 100 per cent happen in Ireland you can see this happening this is what happened Bristol England in man Mr Bijan Ebrahim Innocent man burned to death by vigilante neighbours who mistook falsely accused paedophilia burned to death you can see this happening here in Ireland 100 per cent.