Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

Silentcorner wrote: »

So she experienced eating disorders while working for Elle, a female targeted magazine, with a female audience, talking about all things female and fashion, an industry with an outrageous gender pay gap in favour of women...and yet it is the fault of the patriarchy!!

This is why I have a huge issue with the toxic narrative that feminism is becoming, take The Daily Edge (a part of The Journal), they pepper the section with a nasty narrative that men area at fault for all female ills, including this beauty http://www.dailyedge.ie/personal-safey-4227966-Sep2018/ they also pepper it with beauty tips and fashion tips, beauty tips that is....not healthy tips on how to improve your self worth....but beauty tips...how to look good! They'll blame any body issues on the patriarchy, this is what I mean by toxic!

Jesus, read some of the articles on the Daily edge....the journal ramped up the sjw/triggered articles by 100

Dakota Brave Carrot wrote: »

Jesus, read some of the articles on the Daily edge....the journal ramped up the sjw/triggered articles by 100

The Dailyedge.ie is poison. It's actually ridiculous. It used be very good a few years back but the ones who were a bit of craic left and were replaced by Louise version 2.0

Wibbs wrote: »

It's more likely. Hence all accredited agencies make great efforts to make sure their members do not introduce such ideologies.

Actually having read the American Counselling Associations guidelines around this and some case studies of therapists who have broken this guideline, the issue is IMPOSING values on clients, measured with regard to the achievement or violation of their therapeutic goals. Clearly LON views her therapy as a success so her therapeutic goals were met, and there’s no evidence that the therapists beliefs were imposed on LON.

I would consider feminism radical. Certainly those who self identify as such and are well versed in the beliefs of that philosophy. The latter the important bit. Many, if not most would likely consider themselves "feminist" in thinking, but many if not most still think it's an equality movement. It's demonstrably well past that stage.

I don’t consider feminism radical BUT even if it was radical, the only evidence we have of the therapists opinions is the most neutral bit of advice around eating disorders that pretty much everyone, feminists and non feminists alike, accepts.

Which is not the point and well you know it, but no doubt you'll filter that out again.

There’s no filtering. It’s absolutely the point. The only thing we know the therapist says is a neutral bland bit of advice. If you do indeed agree it’s fairly neutral (I’m pretty sure you do), then the idea that her eating disorder is responsible for her views, through the medium of encountering a radical feminist therapist is just some made up nonsense.

But let's get down to the nitty gritty...
And where pray tell did she pick up this non mainstream feminism(which paints a bad picture of the shrink if it was even more radical)? Who pray tell does she reference in her own words as the person who helped her frame her condition in feminist terms? Who pray tell does she credit in her own words with her "feminist awakening"? Forget about me in this, do you not believe her?

Um I assume she picked it up the same way that feminists who haven’t seen a supposedly feminist therapist have.

For example, I’m quite interested in language and linguistics. It was reading Chomsky’s work that awakened that interest. But years later I disagree with large parts of what he said.

The fact is you have zero idea what went on in LONs therapy in NY all those many years ago apart from three sentences in an interview with one fairly neutral piece of advice. The links being drawn between her feminism and her eating disorder are just made up nonsense designed as a stick to beat her with.

siblers wrote: »

The vast majority of the comments are calling out how ludicrous the articles are but of course the authors never attempt to back up their articles.

As were they before the redesign of the website. The only difference is, they still write crap, just refuse to respond to it.

Sometimes if you correct them, they delete the post, then edit the article with your suggestion. (They used to do similar before, but they would always email you to say 'thanks for the correct, I deleted your post but put a thanks and edit note at the bottom of the article).

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I didn't say the interview was a disgrace because Darcy wasn't an exceptional interviewer ffs, I said it was a disgrace because he tee'd her up to speak about the men at the centre of the Belfast Rape trial and after she did so, suggesting they'd also taken part in a "brutal gang rape" (like the one in her book) he didn't then make it clear that the men to which she was referring were all found not guilty.... and yes that is a disgrace and on her part, I suggest it was deliberate.

Darcy being a crap interviewer was the reason I ended the post calling him a muppet and saying she must love interviews with the likes of him.

Might be like the 'Jack Nicholson' interview-he'll be like 'Aha, it was only a Louise O'Neill impersonator-the real LON is at home in a padded cell'....all pressure off of him.

D'Arcy is a joke-$500 000 for a guy who can't interview to save his life.

If the relationship is, early days, he shouldn't have been in the audience. This was a very public signalling, I have a boyfriend.

autumn2018 wrote: »

louise would definately get a length of wavin pipe if you know what i mean

No, I don't know what you mean...


Explain...:rolleyes: