Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Grayson wrote: »

Go back through the thread. You'll see that other posters brought up the doctors appointment and gave out **** about it. It's only a few pages back. I suggested that she might actually have had an appointment or need to go to a doctor. The **** that people said about her. People started saying she's lying about it. Or that it's not important and she should skip it for the march. Because she didn't skip it, she's a hypocrite.

Once again, I'm not the person who brought it up. Someone else did as a way to criticise her. All I said was that maybe she actually did have an appointment. I also said it's weird going on about her doctors appointment.

This thread has got to the stage where it's verging on internet stalking. Following her every social media post and commenting on her personal life. It's really, really weird.

Grayson, she's an author with a Twitter presence, they're *supposed* to follow it. It's not my cup of tea but I see nothing wrong there.

I called it a cop out that she made a hoo ha about the repeal strike and then didn't go because she had something else to do. I found it disrespectful to those who did-unless she had a good reason, but it didn't look like it from what I read here. So? Should she be mortally offended because some woman on Boards thought she was weak willed and lacking in integrity? I very much doubt she cares but she's welcome to take it up with me. I mean her no harm whatsoever. I doubt anyone else does, either.

JRant wrote: »

Wooh there horsey, nobody has called her a bitch.

This type of posting is becoming far too prevalent for my liking. Just dropping in and trying to get a thread shutdown with incendiary posting, accusing posters of saying things that just never happened.

Trying to get a thread shutdown? WTF are you talking about?

Sweetemotion

Grayson wrote: »

Firstly. Please use full stops. Secondly, what does the bolded bit mean? Thirdly I attached a screenshot.

Isn't that what LON is doing to the "Straight white male"?

Widdershins wrote: »

There's a rule on Boards, something like ''attack the post not the poster''. Are you saying attacking, or criticising, LON's publicly broadcast views, is a campaign AGAINST LON HERSELF?

You brought a doctor's appointment up, though, or didn't you? And others pointed out that one generally knows in advance of one's own medical appointments. Having made repeated declarations of intent to support a widely publicised-and widely promulgated by herself-newsworthy event, it's going to get a few comments if it looks like she didn't put much value on the event after all.

I don't follow her. I'm interested in the issues discussed here and couldn't care less which feminist columnist or author happens to be espousing the offensive and contentious stuff I've seen being reported on this thread. If other posters simply wrote ''a newspaper has published an article claiming that men..'' or ''claiming that women in Ireland..'' it would be the same thing.The views being published are the issue here. The author of those views (and she isn't the only author or public figure discussed in this thread, there have been numerous) pus HERSELF in the limelight, and probably overshares, which is going to elicit comments, because that's what happens on social media. She could simply write anonymously and the bulk of the thread would be much the same, minus a few shallow comments about her latest selfies.

And a witchhunt generally results in something sinister, this is a Boards thread debating, and mainly disagreeing with the writer's stance. Criticism is an occupational hazard for writers.

Go back through the thread. You'll see that other posters brought up the doctors appointment and gave out **** about it. It's only a few pages back. I suggested that she might actually have had an appointment or need to go to a doctor. The **** that people said about her. People started saying she's lying about it. Or that it's not important and she should skip it for the march. Because she didn't skip it, she's a hypocrite.

Once again, I'm not the person who brought it up. Someone else did as a way to criticise her. All I said was that maybe she actually did have an appointment. I also said it's weird going on about her doctors appointment.

This thread has got to the stage where it's verging on internet stalking. Following her every social media post and commenting on her personal life. It's really, really weird.

JRant

Grayson wrote: »

I suggest you look up the definition of witch hunt. Google it and this is the first thing that pops up.

It's over 250 pages at this stage. People talking about her doctors appointments? It's getting freakishly obsessive and personal at this stage. Suggest that she might have actually had a doctors appointment and you're told that she's a lying bitch.

This thread is just a nasty echo chamber at this stage.

Wooh there horsey, nobody has called her a bitch.

This type of posting is becoming far too prevalent for my liking. Just dropping in and trying to get a thread shutdown with incendiary posting, accusing posters of saying things that just never happened.

Maybe reopen a thread and make a rule that personal remarks on appearance or speculation r.e mental health (Despite the fact that LON apparently shares that information anyway) would allow discussion on the meat of the subject. However I see nothing unusual or excessive about the fraction of comments that have focused on the above. A few mild comments about someone's unusual outfit that they themself published is hardly persecution.
The bulk of the thread is about serious questions and concerns for men and women in Ireland, how we relate to one another and how we handle relationships and sex.

Smegmaniac17

Grayson wrote: »

I suggest you look up the definition of witch hunt. Google it and this is the first thing that pops up.

It's over 250 pages at this stage. People talking about her doctors appointments? It's getting freakishly obsessive and personal at this stage. Suggest that she might have actually had a doctors appointment and you're told that she's a lying bitch.

This thread is just a nasty echo chamber at this stage.

I agree with you that there is too much obsessing over every single thing that LON does. However, the ideology of 'rape culture' is something that an awful lot of people want to talk about and if you want to join in on the discussion here on boards this is the thread to do it! There is another thread on rape culture that I saw but the discussion ended in 2012. So your representation of this thread as if it's 250 pages of just bashing LON doesn't seem quite accurate to me! Yeah, of course, Louise O'Neill is going to feature fairly strongly in the discussion but if you are extremely opposed to the ideology of Rape Culture it does make sense to discredit one of it's most high profile cheerleaders, try and debunk her arguments and expose her hypocrisy! But yeah, I get that there is too much obsessing over every single thing she does.

However, I don't think this is an echo chamber at all! Any time a person who wants to make a case for the existence of Rape Culture comes on here, the posters here get excited about it. If anything, they're absolutely desperate to debate it with people who have the opposing view... and the majority try to engage with the arguments meticulously. And it is usually the person who was arguing for Rape Culture that walks away from the debate without addressing some of the most difficult challenges to their arguments offered. (from what I've seen anyway).

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

I just google it on the top of my page its says a witch hunt is a search for people labelled witches or evidence of witchcraft often involving moral panic or mass hysteria Louise o Neill rape culture labelled Men/Women Boys /Girls of rape culture in Ireland

Firstly. Please use full stops. Secondly, what does the bolded bit mean? Thirdly I attached a screenshot.

Grayson wrote: »

I suggest you look up the definition of witch hunt. Google it and this is the first thing that pops up.

It's over 250 pages at this stage. People talking about her doctors appointments? It's getting freakishly obsessive and personal at this stage. Suggest that she might have actually had a doctors appointment and you're told that she's a lying bitch.

This thread is just a nasty echo chamber at this stage.

There's a rule on Boards, something like ''attack the post not the poster''. Are you saying attacking, or criticising, LON's publicly broadcast views, is a campaign AGAINST LON HERSELF?

You brought a doctor's appointment up, though, or didn't you? And others pointed out that one generally knows in advance of one's own medical appointments. Having made repeated declarations of intent to support a widely publicised-and widely promulgated by herself-newsworthy event, it's going to get a few comments if it looks like she didn't put much value on the event after all.

I don't follow her. I'm interested in the issues discussed here and couldn't care less which feminist columnist or author happens to be espousing the offensive and contentious stuff I've seen being reported on this thread. If other posters simply wrote ''a newspaper has published an article claiming that men..'' or ''claiming that women in Ireland..'' it would be the same thing.The views being published are the issue here. The author of those views (and she isn't the only author or public figure discussed in this thread, there have been numerous) pus HERSELF in the limelight, and probably overshares, which is going to elicit comments, because that's what happens on social media. She could simply write anonymously and the bulk of the thread would be much the same, minus a few shallow comments about her latest selfies.
I'm here because I don't appreciate feminist spokeswomen speaking 'for' me as a feminist, in such dramatic and polarising terms as the writer often does.
And a witchhunt generally results in something sinister, this is a Boards thread debating, and mainly disagreeing with the writer's stance. Criticism is an occupational hazard for writers. It appears that shock value is exactly what this particular author is aiming for. If it comes as a surprise that her views and statements sometimes bother people, she must be a very naive woman indeed.

Grayson wrote: »

I suggest you look up the definition of witch hunt. Google it and this is the first thing that pops up.

It's over 250 pages at this stage. People talking about her doctors appointments? It's getting freakishly obsessive and personal at this stage. Suggest that she might have actually had a doctors appointment and you're told that she's a lying bitch.

This thread is just a nasty echo chamber at this stage.

I just google it on the top of my page its says a witch hunt is a search for people labelled witches or evidence of witchcraft often involving moral panic or mass hysteria Louise o Neill rape culture labelled Men/Women Boys /Girls of rape culture in Ireland

Widdershins wrote: »

I think that's pretty belittling to the kind of thing posted above. It's a critical thread, nobody's witchhunting the woman. She's not accused of anything, only critiqued for her statements. Inflammatory statements, targeting men, and targeting people for their skin colour.
Do you see anyone inciting a violent mob, or suggesting any harm should come to the columnist?

I suggest you look up the definition of witch hunt. Google it and this is the first thing that pops up.

a campaign directed against a person or group holding views considered unorthodox or a threat to society.

It's over 250 pages at this stage. People talking about her doctors appointments? It's getting freakishly obsessive and personal at this stage. Suggest that she might have actually had a doctors appointment and you're told that she's a lying bitch.

This thread is just a nasty echo chamber at this stage.

Widdershins wrote: »

Ugh. I see what you meant about witch hunts.:(

Thank You widdershins very scary dark times ahead for Ireland with Louise o Neill rape culture we are gone back in time middle ages dark times like the Salem witch trials that in the 1668 Joseph glanvil claimed there was witches Witch Culture like Louise o Neill rape culture .

Grayson wrote: »

Doesn't anyone see the irony in talking about witch hunts on a thread that is essentially a witch hunt?

I think that's pretty belittling to the kind of thing posted above. It's a critical thread, nobody's witchhunting the woman. She's not accused of anything, only critiqued for her statements. Inflammatory statements, targeting men, and targeting people for their skin colour.
Do you see anyone inciting a violent mob, or suggesting any harm should come to the columnist?

Doesn't anyone see the irony in talking about witch hunts on a thread that is essentially a witch hunt?

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

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.

Ugh. I see what you meant about witch hunts.:(

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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

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*

[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...

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

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:

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.

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.