Louise O Neill on rape culture.

Sasha Wide Squash wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/842772226164310017/photo/1
Cries about rape culture and this Wow

"Privilege" denotes that only men can be demonised for expressing their sexuality. Women can do anything they want without being criticised for it. </LoN logic>

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

LoN has a new article out in the Irish Examiner:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/louise-oneill/powerful-men-accused-of-crimes-against-women-should-fail-at-the-box-office-445543.html

It's behind a paywall, but the headline is enough: "LOUISE O'NEILL: Powerful men, accused of crimes against women, should fail at the box office"

Key word here is "accused". Apparently the concepts of due process and innocent until proven guilty are concepts LoN hasn't come across, or just doesn't ideologically agree with.

Honestly, this is exactly the kind of "privilege" feminists go on about - of course she can advocate for taking away a guy's happiness and livelihood based on an unproven allegation, because as a woman it will never happen to her. Society only throws due process out the window when men are accused of doing something wrong.

On her show about rape, she looked horrified when the (I think it was) barrister was explaining basically your innocent till proven guilty and she basically wanted it the opposite way - This doesn't surprise me

Sasha Wide Squash wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/842772226164310017/photo/1
Cries about rape culture and this Wow

You missed the article about her saying 'it's impossible for women to be sexist against men'...

Never mind, that in the court of law, it's all too possible.

I wonder if LoN has made any statement regarding how the UK courts will no longer allow rape victims to be cross-examined.
Now they will be allowed to give a pre-recorded statement.
I find this troubling-tbh-for both the defendant and the plaintiff/ prosecution. If the testimony is pre-recorded, a rape accuser (sorry if that language is too strong, I just mean someone who accuses another of the crime of rape-I'm not saying they are lying) will obviously forget details of the crime. It's just human error, our memory's aren't perfect. One unmentioned/ forgotten detail, and the accused can leap on that, and thus create questions as to whether the person is lying or not. Likewise, if the accuser is lying, but the defendant cannot question them-then one can claim that the trial is clearly biased. I see it causing more problems than good, tbh.

ivytwine wrote: »

I take your point but I think we're at risk of overstating LON etc and the NWCI's actual influence on society.

Are we? Cause I think if anything their influence is understated.

You initially said:

..most women who I know who identify as feminists are actually fairly normal people..

..which I don't doubt for a second by the way. Indeed most women that I know that identify as a feminist would be the same..... but they are not the feminists that people like Camile Paglia (and others) are complaining about.

You suggest that we might be overstating the influence of NWCI and LON (etc) but I don't agree, as they are the ones with the floor, the ear of the Government, and that are regularly being given platforms (paid for by the tax payer). Your friends are not (nor mine) and so it's neither here nor there that most women who identify as feminist are moderate as they're not the ones trying (and oftentimes succeeding) to poison the well. Which is precisely what the Christina Hoff Sommers' book 'Who Stole Feminism?' is all about.

What has changed really? The consent classes have been a flop.

The fact that they put them on is enough. Don't you think that being able to get even that far, given that they are a minority, shows that they have a disproportionate amount of leverage?

As for young women... yes that's definitely a factor. But most I think, are like myself, able to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the minority of those who can't are just immature IMO. When I was 18 I used to believe the most ridiculous things about gender and I was terribly cynical and black and white. I'm glad twitter wasn't around! Life happened and I grew up.

True, but some don't evolve and mature when it comes to their outlook. There are lots that hold tight to the views they formed in their teens and 20's. You only have to look around at western society today to see how much radical feminism in the 70's, 80's and 90's effected society and so why should we think any different about the so called feminism of today having any less of an effect?

Also the reason LON etc are given their platform in the media is because newspapers are desperate for readers and clicks. They know these articles will get people talking, and reasonable positions just don't. It's unfortunately a complete mess media wise at the moment. I used to edit for a website and some of my favourite writers who were measured and reasonable (on all sorts of topics, not just politics) didn't draw engagement the way more controversial articles did. Even if they were often not as well written.

Well, obviously editors are giving LON a platform to garner readers, but I don't see how that somehow means that her views are not been taken seriously, or that she is not having an influence with how young girls see themselves and young men. Of course they are. That she is click bait doesn't negate that. Click bait is just another way to shove propaganda down people's throats as anything that has gone before it. Perhaps one of the most powerful today in fact given that young people tend to have the attention span of a goldfish.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

One only has to look at issues such as introduction of mandatory consent classes in universities, the blatantly and revoltingly one sided approach Twitter is taking towards harassment and hate speech, and the number of people whose reputations are being destroyed and who are being singled out for condemnation by allegation, in the total absence of conviction, to understand just how serious the SJW influence on society has become.

A rather laughable example is 2016. 2016 began with a man convicted f sexual assault (Steven Avery) being widely acquitted by social media because the liberal establishment told people to, while at the same time a man who has never been convicted of anything (Dr Luke) was pronounced guilty all over social media and demanded that part of his livelihood (his contractual entitlement to some of Kesha's musical royalties) be torn up and thrown out all because he had been accused - by somebody with an j virus monetary interest in such an accusation - of sexual assault.

Whether you're male or female, put yourself in the position of being innocent of that crime, but told that you should have millions of dollars which you have worked hard for taken away even though a judge has specifically found the allegations against you to be without merit. That's the reality of the society people like LoN are attempting to create.

True, that is the society they are trying to create-but then again, it's a society that is clearly being shown to be without merit.
And more and more individuals are fighting back against it.

I'll use the analogy of Scientology, even though I know feminism is not a cult/ religion (not yet, anyways). Scientology, even up until the late 90s/ early 2000's, I would argue, was seemingly untouchable. Like, you could not make a joke or a comment about it for fear of getting sued/ harassed etc. And then slowly but surely, it's power greatly waned-their poster boys, Tom Cruise and John Travolta, were mocked and derided-the South Park episode absolute tore shreds out of them, and more and more people left the cult-we saw folks like Paul Haggis, Jason Lee, and Nicole Kidman, to name a few, leaving-and many of them saw their lives get considerably better. And this is an organisation where people were afraid to even joke about em, to an organisation where jokes about em are commonplace. They were once the power players in hollywood, and are now that annoying rash that you rub cream to once in a while.

Feminism is much the same-when studios have catered to the SJW's (Ghostbusters) the films get absolutely no traction. None. Yet shows, and films, that don't cater to feminists-they gather traction over, and over, again. Game of Thrones gets all the 'feminists' complaining-yet every time, the ratings increase, the audiences grow-and no matter the complaining, nothing they say changes the show.
Also note, there are many female celebrities who are like 'no, I am not a feminist' such as Shailene Woodley, Carrie Underwood, Katy Perry, and Sarah Jessica PArker.
It's important to note that the 'consent' classes were pushed by the student union-the colleges gave no support to the classes whatsoever-it was SJW's at work.

When genuine rapes have occurred-within countries where there is a rape culture-nay, rape crisis-the feminists stay quiet. LoN said nothing about a few recent cases-and that says so much, tbh. There are genuine countries where we NEED to tackle the culture, genuinely. Yet feminists will not. And that's shocking, tbh. Yet when people do go there to actually challenge, and try to change the rape cultures of those countries, LoN and co will sit on their chairs and claim 'it was all their work'...yet they never left their keyboards.

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Ched Evans sat in jail for 2 years and had his name dragged through the mud before being found not guilty of rape. His alleged victim didn't even accuse him of rape apparently. Just goes to show how dangerous the "guilty until proven innocent" mindset is for someone that actually is falsely accused of rape.

Yeah, apparently googled 'was I raped'-which is disturbing that was not called into question.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149462/Brian-Banks-One-time-football-star-rape-charge-dismissed-years-prison-accuser-contacts-Facebook-say-happened.html

There was also this incident-a student who spent 6 years in prison for rape. When he was released, his accuser messaged him on facebook and added him as a friend-then said she wanted 'bygones to be bygones' and admitted he never raped her. She was caught on video saying the same thing, and thus his conviction was overturned. But his life is ruined-nay, destroyed. No matter what, people will say stuff like 'oh, he lied or claim 'internalised misogyny made her feel like he was innocent'. The accuser, Wanetta Gibson, said she wouldn't testify it was a lie, because her mom had sue his school, won 1.5 million, and didn't want to pay the money back...(a court case since has ruled she must repay 2.6 million dollars to the school).
Now, if we compare it to the Brock Turner case-Banks was given ALL the wrong advice by his lawyers, while Turner was wealthy and availed of a class based system.
Interestingly, Banks didn't cry 'white privilege'-and he could, oh golly he could have. But he did cite privliege-as in wealth based privilege.

“I would say it’s a case of privilege,” Banks said. “It seems like the judge based his decision on lifestyle. He’s lived such a good life and has never experienced anything serious in his life that would prepare him for prison. He was sheltered so much he wouldn’t be able to survive prison. What about the kid who has nothing, he struggles to eat, struggles to get a fair education? What about the kid who has no choice who he is born to and has drug-addicted parents or a non-parent household? Where is the consideration for them when they commit a crime?”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4233902/Inmates-rape-conviction-overturned-days-hes-killed.html

Or this case, where a guy was killed in prison due to a very disturbing method of conviction-an officer lied in order to gain a testimony out of him (claimed dna had been found, when it had not). And a nurse gave a testimony that 'a rape can occur without showing any signs of brusing or tearing'-she wasn't qualified to give testimony.
The person in question had his conviction overturned-but it was 4 days after he was beaten to death in prison. Now, I will admit-he wasn't exactly the nicest guy, he was on the sex offenders register, but it seems like they wanted a convction, even if he was innocent.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-cruel-summer-ahead-with-no-female-festival-headliners-1.3016414

Will she/LON have a meltdown as there's no women in the Champions Leauge (I know theres a womens soccer one but id guess theyd hardly care or notice there is one)..ffs they really are reaching for problems

It is a sad life, and it leading to bitterness, and Mullally is on about gender quotas for a music festival if there were ever first world problems this is it. The process of music festivals such as this is to appeal to those who will pay big prices to go to acts they want to see, not what Una forces them to see.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's legal in the West, FGM isn't. That's the issue. Infant female genitalia are afforded the protection of the state, infant male genitalia are not. This is an example of male disposability (women matter, men not so much) and is something which boys growing up are exposed to repeatedly, both from outdated sources (seeing men being left to drown in the film "Titanic") and from current sources (hearing a discrepancy of female underachievement being condemned as sexist discrimination, eg corporate ladder imbalances, while male underachievement is hailed as female accomplishment, eg exam results). Add this to the LoN brand of "feminism" which convicts all men simply by gender association and demands that every accusation ruin somebody's career (see the article I linked to over the page). Hear enough of that sh!te during your childhood and of course it's going to piss you off - how could it not?

Fair points.

I'm pretty dismayed by the direction Una Mullally has gone in recent years, much like outlets such as The Guardian and the Huffington Post - she's incredibly nice in person and there was a time when she was fighting for everyone against the establishment. Somehow a vast number of outlets and journalists managed to get swept up into this SJW thing and now spend more time attacking people on the basis of demographic than doing what they should be doing, which is gathering ordinary people together to take on the power structures which are actually destroying our society and the planet we live on. There was a time when people like Una Mullally championed the internet as an anarchistic space untouchable by government and therefore usable by activists, whistleblowers, journalists etc to check those institutions without fear of repercussions - now, she would probably take the view that internet regulation is worth losing these incredible tools in the fight against government and corporate power, if it prevents men from making lewd remarks about celebrities and ensures that people with right wing opinions cannot air them without reprisal.

It's genuinely incredible. The transformation many of the biggest voices against injustice have undergone over the last 3-4 years - so incredible, indeed, that a conspiratorially minded person would wonder whether this is being orchestrated by those formerly the target of accountability. Set those opposed to power against one another, sow discord and mistrust, and watch them battle it out while the bankers, politicians and lobbyists of the world walk away from the mess they created unpunished.

No matter whose side you're on in this, it's incredibly depressing.

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Wasn't Mullaly beating that drum last summer as well?




Regarding the false rape accusations, it sounds like this poor guy is getting well and truly shafted. It's a longish read, but some shocking stuff in there.

http://watchdog.org/291268/father-fired-defending-disabled-son-campus-kangaroo-court/

It's quite possible that he did rape her, but if the story is to be believed he isn't even getting a fair chance to defend himself. The fact that he was technically raped by his accuser is completely ignored too. This is what happens when "feminists" like Louise O'Neill keep pushing this rape culture nonsense.

I think that showing he couldn't gain an erection would possibly rule out sex-but then again, that's just me. From the article tho, where it notes she 'texted from the bed of another fraternity' as well as ruling out a rape kit-she may very well have had sex that night, just not with him. Ruling out the rape kit would make me question every aspect of her story.

It seems like he is getting shafted immensely. I genuinely hope he gets justice-this seems like a horrendous case of 'guilty, until proven innocent'.

I find it ironic that a lot of the male headliners for music festivals are acts which, in my opinion, have a predominantly female fan base. Ed Sheeran headlining Glastonbury this year for example. Muse and Coldplay headlining last year. Funnily enough Adele headlined Glastonbury last year also despite being a woman, and a curvy one (fat shaming?) at that. It's almost as though if you're talented and popular enough you'll be asked to headline regardless of what's between your legs.

Like you said though, it must be sad looking at everything in life in terms of gender quotas.

The last time an irish act headlined any concert-it was Amanda Brunker-and it was so bad, rte went and edited it to make her sound like she could sing.
(Brunker then proceeded to cry victim when folks genuinely criticised her).

Yes, Una doesn't seem to understand that talent gets you these gigs, not your gender-and one has to appeal to both.
Florence and the machine headlined in 2015, for example. As did Paloma Faith. But Paloma is out on maternity leave now, and Florence is prepping a new album. So it's not all bad.

I would imagine if the festival were all women, Um and co would decry it for 'too many white chicks' or 'not enough trans women' or 'no woc'.
You can't win.

I've listened to the acts Una 'recommends' some of them are so awful...it's the reason she's not allowed present music shows (she did, once, and yeah...less said).

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not so sure, they do have the power to fracture powerful social movements. Look at what happened in America after the primaries - people I know personally (and I've seen similar stories hundreds of times over the last year so it's not just a tiny minority) who would always have identified as left wing voted for feckin' Trump just because the SJW media and its incessant, inflammatory preaching pissed them off so much that it seemed worth putting up with him just to piss them off. And I fully believe that Brexit in the UK was affected by a similar movement - people voted for Brexit not in spite of the talking heads on the TV telling them not to, but BECAUSE they were telling them not to.

Yes, the SJW's put all their cards into 'Hillary for president' then cried 'sexism' when she lost (LoN is ALWAYS going on about TRump-every second article-jebus!).
What they didn't even stop to look at was how she came across terribly on television, how she looked awkward, how they were trying to portray her as warm and friendly-when in fact there was too much evidence to show the contrary. And when folks were crying 'she's more open and honest than Trump'-we got the pneumonia thing...and that 'secretiveness' that has been a Clinton staple emerged again'-so much so that people bought into the conspiracy theories about her suffering from alzheimers, dementia etc.
The media cried sexism, yet when McCain ran for president-those who opposed him, despite his military record, cited things like 'he's 72 now, in a few years, he might DIE! (He's still alive, but that didn't stop the media hypothesizing).
Clinton looked far more unhealthy than him, Trump was older but looked in better shape (despite his MacDonald's diet).
I don't know why people cannot get over the fact 'she lost'. LoN in particular-it's been almost six months, she's still whining.