Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

Options
1568101124

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    py2006 wrote: »
    Did she quote me and the other misogynists here?:rolleyes:

    No someone text in saying that boards.ie were going mad about it and he quoted it. I take it hes been burnt by boards in the past didnt sound like he put to much thought into the feedback from here.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,366 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    I think it was a poor panel as they had noone to play devils advocate. Davenport was the only one who even attempted to counteract her article. She did raise some good points during the interview which hardens my belief that she wrote the article for publicity as none of the points that were coherant were contained in the article.
    She also admitted that she had written the article before the Garda made the statement which I thought was funny.
    I did like the boards mentionbiggrin.png


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 914 ✭✭✭tommyboy2222


    Hardly a storm whipped up though ?? :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    All its shown is how **** Fionn is at chairing a discussion you normal see some level of impartiality or devils advocate but hes so poor at the job she dominated not only that discussion but also further conversation (somone loves the sound of their own voice).

    Thankfully this is his last show back to travel with him, he is much more enjoyable in that spot as he has a knowledge and passion for it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,447 ✭✭✭Calhoun


    Hardly a storm whipped up though ?? :pac:

    Was there ever really going to be at 11PM, hardly a primetime slot she got off easy as it was a weak presenter in a crappy slot.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    She did raise some good points during the interview which hardens my belief that she wrote the article for publicity as none of the points that were coherant were contained in the article.
    It's also quite possible that she's managed to do some research on the subject after writing the article.

    Nonetheless, even if the entire thing wasn't originally an exercise in self-publicity, it does appear to be one now. I'm not sure giving it any further oxygen is the best approach.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,381 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil



    That article came up my work twitter feed. I don't normally get too invested in caring, but I think using the heading/subheading 'men must accept...' is clearly out to **** stir - the same could likely be said of any that starts with 'women must accept...' And what is she trying to get us to accept, that men carry out most violence? That's a given. I'm a little uneasy about her jumping on an open Garda murder investigation, but OK, her beef is with the Commissioner's comments and the perception of blame. Fine, write away. Overall, I get what she is trying to say, but it's a poor article.

    A couple of points. Firstly, why are people calling this journalism? It's not. It's in the realm of opinion and there is zero hard analysis. I don't really see an issue with that as the mainstream media has always run sound, if imperfect investigatory journalism and opinion pieces. Hers is clearly not the former. It's like taking a John Waters piece as fact when it's usually just spleen venting. I wouldn't get too bogged down in having a pop at the Irish Times at an ideological level, tbh. Trouble is, the internet has very much changed how the print media does some of its work. People want content and they want it now. The traditional media, imo, isn't entirely to blame here. It's easier to take stuff and post it online because the business model to do detailed analysis is probably no longer viable. Not to say they should give up on it, mind. Instead what matters is page views, brand awareness and ads. Buuuut, all of that doesn't mean attacking the content of her piece should be off limits, not at all.

    Secondly, can some explain to me what 'rape culture' is? That rape happens? That there is, from her view, a casual and indifferent attitude towards it, jokes down the pub? That by having a penis all men somehow facilitate rape? What? She said
    Men, of course, argue that this generalisation is unfair, that it demonises blokes who are non-violent and deplore such behaviour. Yet every group of guys has a buddy who is a little wayward, and whose behaviour towards women is dubious. Many men remain silent when the lads suggest a strip club on a stag night, even if they are uncomfortable with it. Most guys probably have a suspicion that a male close to them has bought sex.
    I don't have friends like this, I never have. I just don't. Yes, of course, when you're in school there's probably a bit of knockers, wahaay!! and yes, OK, some of that carries over into adulthood. I've never been to a strip club. I've no interest in it. She's doing an awful lot of armchair BS psychoanalysing here.

    On my last holiday I was aware of a guy and girl who got together in a pub toilet (thankfully, I didn't see the act itself) and then essentially get a verbal 'high five, buddy' cheer from strangers once he emerged from the toilet. She was greeted similarly, too. There was a lot of alcohol involved. So, Una, was it up to me to challenge their mores on this? I'm not into that sort of thing myself, and no, I'm not down with telling people I barely know on how to conduct themselves. There were 3-4 other women at our table, about the same number of men. One of the women wasn't drinking, nor was I. If any of us at the table felt she was at risk I'm fairly sure we wouldn't have let the situation develop as it did.

    Sometimes around these parts we're accused of flying the BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEN?! banner. Una seems to be doing this only in that she is somehow unique in being the first person to point out that men have and do attack women. Wow, I hadn't thought of that before...
    You can’t tar every man with the same brush
    And yet, you've used the biggest one you can find.

    She speaks about the issue of under-reported rape and sexual violence. She is correct to state that it is a problem, the failures of the judicial system and that, to a degree, some people shift the blame onto the victim. Todd Akin and other morons like that. But aside from that, I think one of the biggest problems is that a lot of the time the perpetrator is someone known - a neighbour, brother, thus making it very intimidating for people to come forward. That very much needs to change.
    How refreshing would it have been if Callinan had decided to appeal to potential attackers instead of potential victims? Why must we continue to exonerate the perpetrators of violence in our society – overwhelmingly male – while telling women to watch their backs? Everyone knows the best remedy for any ill is prevention. If being a man means standing up and taking responsibility for one’s actions, then men: be men.

    Is she that naive to think this would make any difference? Oh look, the top brass of AGS is telling men not to rape. As if those inclined this way (for whom I've no time) would actually pay any heed. Cop on. As to feminism, I haven't really gotten into conversations with women where they've said 'I'm a feminist', but if I do I'll ask them what they mean. I've said before that I don't really know what it is because it has a PR problem which I put on people like Una and how they try to frame debates. Lazy analysis. All of her blather simply does reinforce negative stereotypes about it. I would much rather hear from ordinary woman and how they think of feminism rather than some train wreck of an article. It doesn't matter where you fall on the ideological or political spectrum, there is something very echo chambery about pieces like this and ordinary people need to be the ones setting the tone of the debates.

    Last night I discovered Project Unbreakable. It basically shows people who have been sexually assaulted with signs of what their attackers said. Give people ownership of telling their story and it will hit home. Much more powerful than any opinion driven, half baked sociology textbook tripe from Una.

    tumblr_mtj7jyYSjm1r65rllo3_500.jpg

    tumblr_mt6xjpf1bT1r65rllo1_500.jpg
    tumblr_mtjht9wSe41r65rllo2_1280.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,586 ✭✭✭newport2


    +1 The Black Oil, excellent post


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    You should submit that as a letter to the Irish Times, might help improve their content! :D

    Good post. Some very good posts in this thread overall, great to see some sensibility breaking through the madness.

    I think it's fair to say that a lot of us have taken this personally and taken offence to the article. Why? Because we realise how abhorrent and vile the act of rape is and we do not in any way want to be linked to that horrible crime, particularly by such a weak link as us simply being male.

    For someone that appears to feel so strongly about rape Una Mullally's article did nothing to highlight the issue and encourage worthwhile debate about it and did more to damage her arguments.

    I hope she doesn't see a potential career in politics for herself in the future.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    I hope she doesn't see a potential career in politics for herself in the future.

    i suppose it depends on what happens to the senate


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,247 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    Pawwed Rig wrote: »
    That article is truly sickening.
    I will just leave this here for anyone who wants to take it a little further

    http://www.pressombudsman.ie/_fileupload/How%20to%20Complain%2009_10.pdf


    Principle 8 – Prejudice
    Newspapers and magazines shall not
    publish material intended or likely to
    cause grave offence or stir up hatred
    against an individual or group on the
    basis of their race, religion, nationality,
    colour, ethnic origin, membership of
    the travelling community, gender,
    sexual orientation, marital status,
    disability, illness, or age.

    I think this article crosses the line on this multiple times.

    Edit: I sent an e-mail to the online editor of the Irish Times. I will keep you all updated on any response I get. If none I will escalate to the press ombudsman. Does anyone know if the Times has signed up to the code of practice?

    Any updates on this?


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Home & Garden Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 22,366 CMod ✭✭✭✭Pawwed Rig


    Any updates on this?

    Yes. See post number 91 and I got the 2nd reply today again ignoring my points and invited me to write a Letter to the Editor for consideration of publication to the Times, which I am not inclined to do. He seems under the impression I want to debate about it rather than submit a complaint.
    Next step is the ombudsman.

    That will be a lengthy process though but will update if I hear anything.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,878 ✭✭✭iptba


    You should submit that as a letter to the Irish Times, might help improve their content! :D
    Just to point out that that would be too long for the paper.

    But it could be posted as a comment under the piece. The Irish Times is now allowing people post using Twitter accounts so effectively one can be anonymous (one can have more than one Twitter account). For a while, it was just Facebook and LinkedIn accounts which for most people took away the anonymous option.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,381 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    I don't use social sites myself, but if someone wants to tweet her the post link feel free.

    She might want to look at this BuzzFeed post on Project Unbreakable. I presume her next column will be about all the anonymous hate mail she got telling her she's angry feminist.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    TBH, just stop giving her any more publicity and let her sink back into the obscurity from which she came. If she resurfaces again in the future and tries to take the moral high ground somewhere else, then by all means, make sure that her past views are not forgotten and they come back to haunt her.


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,788 ✭✭✭✭Panthro


    Part two for anyone who missed it. There was only a small bit in Part 1 IIRC.
    http://www.newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/13/4369/26th_September_2013_-_Davenport_After_Dark_Part_2


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,878 ✭✭✭iptba


    iptba wrote: »
    It has been suggested that feminism should not be brought in to it.

    However, I think feminism, or some forms of it, can (i) bring about a negative view of men and (ii) make it more acceptable for negative attitudes about men to be said publicly.

    I think there's a good chance such an article wouldn't have been published without the influence of feminism on her personally and on the editor or editors involved who agreed to publish it.

    Over the years, society has gradually been inured to negative things being said about men and bad things being blamed on men: indeed, feminism has at its basis a blame on patriarchy for problems. Patriarchy is very much associated with men, men's power and influence, etc. In other words, it could be said feminism blames men for society's problems.
    One might say that the article was a product of "feminist culture".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,790 ✭✭✭maguic24


    Panthro wrote: »
    Part two for anyone who missed it. There was only a small bit in Part 1 IIRC.
    http://www.newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/13/4369/26th_September_2013_-_Davenport_After_Dark_Part_2

    Just listening to it now, god I'm getting so annoyed!!!!!! Her anger about this issue is righteous....the fudge??????? What the actual fudge???????

    Women are silenced now.....I didn't get the memo........

    - Angry Female


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 914 ✭✭✭tommyboy2222


    Panthro wrote: »
    Part two for anyone who missed it. There was only a small bit in Part 1 IIRC.
    http://www.newstalk.ie/player/listen_back/13/4369/26th_September_2013_-_Davenport_After_Dark_Part_2

    Actually she goes off on a crazy confused rant in part 1. Worth listening to if you are following this topic.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28 Agent Green


    This is an article on AVFM about Una's article

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/women-dont-own-sex/


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    This is an article on AVFM about Una's article

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/women-dont-own-sex/

    My irony meter just exploded.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    B0jangles wrote: »
    My irony meter just exploded.

    I have to say, I was with him some of the way but he went a bit OTT


  • Registered Users Posts: 28 Agent Green


    B0jangles wrote: »
    My irony meter just exploded.

    Okay.

    Incidentally, CAFE and AVFM are not the same organization. CAFE are a non-political, non-ideological group that does not identify as a men's rights org. They're mainly concerned with fund-raising for their men's centre in Toronto and are also interested in activism on college campuses. AVFM are also non-ideological and non-political but are also more radical and do identify as men's rights activists. You're either lying to people or you don't know what you're talking about. Whichever it is - you need to stop spreading misinformation.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28 Agent Green


    py2006 wrote: »
    I have to say, I was with him some of the way but he went a bit OTT


    Diana Davison, a woman, wrote the article.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    Diana Davison, a woman, wrote the article.

    :eek:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    Okay.

    Incidentally, CAFE and AVFM are not the same organization. CAFE are a non-political, non-ideological group that does not identify as a men's rights org. They're mainly concerned with fund-raising for their men's centre in Toronto and are also interested in activism on college campuses. AVFM are also non-ideological and non-political but are also more radical and do identify as men's rights activists. You're either lying to people or you don't know what you're talking about. Whichever it is - you need to stop spreading misinformation.

    Riiiight.

    http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2012/12/mens-rights-movement-cafe-university-toronto


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    B0jangles wrote: »

    As blatantly skewed as that article is it doesn't anywhere establish a link between the two other than that they've had speakers on men's rights and have link to a mra site.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28 Agent Green


    B0jangles wrote: »


    I am a member of both organizations and spoke with Paul Elam just two days ago about my membership of CAFE. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about and neither does that idiot Laxer. CAFE and AVFM are different organizations. I'd personally prefer if they worked more closely together.

    But be clear - you don't know anything. Michael Laxer spoke at the OISE institute last week and painted an absolutely bizarre picture full of lies and misrepresentations about the MRM, CAFE, and AVFM. The recording is at AVFM if you want to listen to it. Nobody outside of the feminist movement actually takes him seriously - did you know he ran for city council in TO and only received 3% of the vote? People hate him for a reason.

    The article that you linked to is also nonsense. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last year you'll have seen what happened at UofT. You'd have seen the rampant intimidation by so-called feminst 'protestors.' Everyone saw it. These feminist 'protestors' caused a police reaction by blocking doors. They pulled a fire alarm. They spat at police officers. They yelled abuse directly in people's faces.

    Finally - Laxer could not establish any link whatsoever between CAFE and AVFM in that article. The reason? There is no link. You can go onto AVFM and read an editorial by Paul Elam in which he openly criticizes CAFE's approach in Toronto.

    You. Don't. Know. What. You're. Talking. About.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,951 ✭✭✭B0jangles


    You're kind of proving my point about the groups being linked - you yourself are a link.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,346 ✭✭✭Rev Hellfire


    B0jangles wrote: »
    You're kind of proving my point about the groups being linked - you yourself are a link.

    seriously?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement