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

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for continuing the discussion of the recent Belfast rape trial. The old thread can be found here.

Thanks,
The AH mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Roger Hassenforder

wexie wrote: »

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

"On Friday evening, dozens of people staged a protest outside the Kingspan Stadium in Belfast ahead of Ulster Rugby's match against Ospreys.

The rally was organised by Belfast Feminist Network."

Ah yes, "the people"

wexie

Fann Linn wrote: »

Just outta bed. Thats old news.

I only just spotted it, apologies.

Fann Linn

wexie wrote: »

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

Just outta bed. Thats old news.

wexie

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

MTBD

facehugger99 wrote: »

Don't treat other people like ****e and you'll be grand.

Yeah, how about you just stop being male? It's such a bad thing to be ya know? Women have no role to play in this and can dress/act however they want with no consequences whatsoever. Men are the evil ones and we need to fix them through social engineering and legislation.

Or maybe im talking complete bollocks and these behaviours are instinctive and deeply rooted in our biology like science seems to be suggesting.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-big-questions/201008/sexualized-women-are-seen-objects-studies-find

"The exception was when men high in sexism viewed pictures of sexually dressed women. These pictures did not activate the mPFC for sexist males. This suggests that these men's brains did not perceive these women as fully human.

This study is consistent with the work of University of Padova researchers. They found that when women were dressed sexually (compared to when they weren't), people implicitly associated them more with animals.

Other research has found that merely focusing on a woman's appearance (fully dressed) is enough for people (men and women) to dehumanize a woman. Specifically, we found that people assign female targets less "human nature traits" when focus is on their appearance. These traits are perceived by humans to separate people from machines, automata and objects.

Another study found that these women are seen as less moral (sincere, trusting) and less emotionally warm (likable, warm).

These findings are also consistent with a wide range of work showing that objectified women are perceived as less competent. Interestingly, research even finds that when men view sexualized pictures of women, they subsequently view a female experimenter as doing a worse job. In other words, men "carried over" their views of the sexualized women to another woman, who was not scantily dressed."

Roger Hassenforder

Amirani wrote: »

Working class? Based on what exactly?

Probably should have used "working class" and "middle class" to allow for common misconceptions of the respective sports around here.

FrancieBrady

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself. It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

+1 on this ^
If you make a remark about an individual woman it is immediately conflated into being about all women.

Ridiculous and one of the main reasons why feminists will never create their utopia. Because it is actually unattainable.

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

Hilarious how people who think they can say what they like themselves have such a big problem when someone else uses a word they don't like. Channel your inner female and put up with it like we have to do all the time.

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself. It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

Amirani

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I think youve given the game away there.

No one too outraged about a black working class convicted rapist. An acquitted middle class white lad on the other hand...
Its irresistible for the perpetually outraged

Working class? Based on what exactly?

clevtrev

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think there is an injunction around that case. As far as I know he was a minor at the time ?

https://theukdatabase.com/2014/11/01/3-kildare-residents-each-receive-suspended-sentences-for-sexual-abuse-of-schoolgirl/

facehugger99

C__MC wrote: »

Classy statements by olding and Jackson, hope they make millions

I'd be happy enough to see them get their careers back on track - as long as it's in France or somewhere else. It might even encourage the victim to take a civil case against them.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes they will but maybe those successful men won't send them home crying and mock them next day. Maybe some of them will realise that is not how you treat fellow human being.

A girl left my house one night in tears after we broke up. She cheated, i dumped.
Should i lose my job?

C__MC

Classy statements by olding and Jackson, hope they make millions

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

Because loads of young kids are looking up to Waterford United player nobody even knows the name of? You really don't understand that it's about their standing in society, not about their profession . Higher on the ladder they are less room for mistake there is.

I think youve given the game away there.

No one too outraged about a black working class convicted rapist. An acquitted middle class white lad on the other hand...
Its irresistible for the perpetually outraged

facehugger99

Ohmeha wrote: »

As a man I am frightened by all this

Don't treat other people like ****e and you'll be grand.

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

Heard a radio interview in the week where it was revealed that during the Judges summing up, council for Jackson “On instruction” ie told by Jackson to do so, objected to the tone used by the Judge. Apparently, it was suggested that her tone was more sympathetic to the girl. It was dismissed. It further shows the arrogance of the accused.

Hi Maryanne84

It is well within the realms of the concept of a fair trial that an accused can question any perceived lack of impartiality. There is nothing arrogant about having a keen interest in ensuring you don't get sent to prison on the basis of a trial which you believe is being conducted improperly or unfairly -- even if your belief is mistaken. This was a criminal trial, not a polite discussion.

Furthermore, 'On instruction' can also mean that it came from Jackson's solicitor rather than Jackson himself -- did they really specify that Jackson personally requested this? Maybe they did, and fair enough if so, but if you think you aren't getting a fair trial then it is both reasonable and indeed sensible to voice that concern.

_Dara_

Omackeral wrote: »

Any woman that says “mansplaining” most likely has a loaded or sexist POV anyway.

This Aussie politician handled it beautifully when he was hit with it by a fellow senator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXh5repOWI

Both of them come across as arrogant gobshites there, to be honest.

backspin.

Omackeral wrote: »

Any woman that says “mansplaining” most likely has a loaded or sexist POV anyway.

This Aussie politician handled it beautifully when he was hit with it by a fellow senator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXh5repOWI

Yeah it's a sexist way of saying to men to shut up your opinion doesn't matter because you are a man.

Anyone using that term had a nerve asking others to not be sexist.

Mrsmum

Hilarious how people who think they can say what they like themselves have such a big problem when someone else uses a word they don't like. Channel your inner female and put up with it like we have to do all the time.

Wrongway1985

C__MC wrote: »

Sad day folks when two innocent men lose their job after being acquitted in a marathon trial by a unanimous descion.

Nothing to do with the outcome of the trial. The behavior of these lads was scummy and the type a professional sports team would want well shot of if they don't want backlash from their partners and supporters. No surprise whatsoever.

bottlebrush

Fann Linn wrote: »

And the moral of this story is 'stay off watzap!'

That's the thing about all this - this 'behaviour' is not going to just disappear overnight - it's just that there will be no evidence of it

And in the interest of fairness, shouldn't the IRFU be examining the whatsapp messages and behaviour of their other players - role models - so that they can continue in their contracts. In fact, let's investigate the online activity of all celebrities to determine whether they are fit to continue as role models.

Oh wait....

TerrorFirmer

Mrsmum wrote: »

No one marries a ons.

While I've yet to get married, I've had several relationships that began with a 'ONS' - even though I don't even like that term, really.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

That's why I said they are following the mood of the people.

a vociferous minority I feel, triggered enough to literally 'mobile'ize themselves to put thumb to screen, via twitter etc, so lets not use opinion polls to establish the mood of the "people in a statistically unreliable poll or two.
most people i know think its outrageous, both their identification in the media, and subsequent treatment after being found innocent.

lets remind ourselves of the conversation that has led to an outraged mob demanding they never play for their country again. Something they have worked towards all their life. Its not more than a hobby, Irish rugby was their life.

on being asked "how was she?" by a friend. Olding replied
"she was very very loose.”
Friend: “Any tips or stories Simon?”
Olding:“Went to Cutters, Ollies, then after-party”
Friend: “Any sluts get f**ked?”
Olding: “Precious secrets.”
11:16am JACOME WhatsApp member: “I said tonight is your lucky night.”
11:17am Olding :“we’re all top sh***ers”
11.17am Olding: “there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas
11.17am Jackson: “There was a lot of spit roast last night.” (thats his contribution in full!)
11.18am Olding “It was like a merry go round at the carnival

two young men after what they thought was a consensual threesome (known as a spitroast" with a willing participant, indulge in some braggadocio. among their friends.
If you honestly think any young male in your life wouldnt say worse in the privacy of their friends, you are seriously deluded.
George Hook was hounded for a public clumsy utterance that a mob found unpalatable. These lads have been hounded for a private utterance.
Its fcuking outrageous.

FrancieBrady

Another Rape Crisis centre lady(Susan McKay) on RTE there and STILL not a mention of the role women have to play going forward, if situations like this are to disappear.

Soapboxing and bandwagoning on feminist mantras instead.

clevtrev

C__MC wrote: »

Am I really reading this? Waterford United have a convicted rapist under contract? You actually couldn’t make this up- where are the protests/social media mob?

mob and media have no interest unless the perps or the complainants are from a nice part of town, with good breeding or have some sort of public profile - obvioulsy playing for Waterford FC isnt public enough!

[Deleted User]

Mrsmum wrote: »

Oh dear, you really don't like getting a woman's pov do you.

Any woman that says “mansplaining” most likely has a loaded or sexist POV anyway.

This Aussie politician handled it beautifully when he was hit with it by a fellow senator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXh5repOWI

[Deleted User]

Heard a radio interview in the week where it was revealed that during the Judges summing up, council for Jackson “On instruction” ie told by Jackson to do so, objected to the tone used by the Judge. Apparently, it was suggested that her tone was more sympathetic to the girl. It was dismissed. It further shows the arrogance of the accused.

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

Will you get off the stage. I never once said your pov was irrelevant. Go back and read my post and show me where I said that. I said what you are saying is from a man's pov and then gave you a woman's pov. And for a person who said they have and indeed will continue to call women sluts, you are really really touchy about the term mansplaining which is what I felt you were doing.

Why should I ever 'get off the stage' when people are calling for every private morally questionable statement we make to be used as the be-all-and-end-all of our beliefs and deprive us of our careers? That is what you are advocating is it not? A 'thought police' world where the private statements and jokes of citizens must be subject to moral audit, and all those who use derogatory language regardless of context should be cast from their jobs.

Like all dictatorships though, the one you envisage is clearly based on the doctrine of 'do as I say but not as I do'. You write eloquently about how being called a slut makes you personally feel. I never questioned how it makes you feel -- I never disputed it -- and I never purported to tell you how it should make you feel. You then, with remarkable arrogance, used the term 'mansplaining' to describe my sincere attempts at debating with you. You had no regard to how generalising my views based on my gender would make me feel did you?

But of course, the hypocrite that you are, you have not even offered an apology for your derogatory statement -- yet you have the sheer audacity to demand that others should not only apologise for using sexist terms in private, but should be sacked for it and categorised as sexists.

For the record, and in the interests of maintaining consistency in my arguments (i.e. not being a hypocrite) I don't think you're a sexist just because you used a generalising term in your private life. I'm sure you do not filter your language in the comfort of your home in the same way you might do in a work email or a public lecture. I know you didn't set out to hurt my feelings or the feelings of other men on this site. You used a silly term carelessly, as we all do. What angers me however are the double standards you apply. It seems that it's OK for you to use whatever derogatory term you want to generalise me and my opinions i.e. my views are 'mansplaining' just because I'm a man --- yet it's not OK for anyone else?

meeeeh

C__MC wrote: »

Am I really reading this? Waterford United have a convicted rapist under contract? You actually couldn’t make this up- where are the protests/social media mob?

Because loads of young kids are looking up to Waterford United player nobody even knows the name of? You really don't understand that it's about their standing in society, not about their profession . Higher on the ladder they are less room for mistake there is.

Fann Linn

And the moral of this story is 'stay off watzap!'