Louise O Neill

1eg0a3xv7b82of

Feminism has and always will be a middle class concept.
Feminism is dominated by the white middle class who dont care that their clothes were made by poor women in Asia or the petrol for their car comes from Saudia Arabia where women are treated as second class citizens.
Its all Bull**** and Louise O Neill is just playing the game and getting paid.

So you can be instructed to stop saying something provocative which is substantiated by academic research, but asking a serious contributor whether she's "straight or a man-hating lesbian?" is merely "not particularly" acceptable.

I'll probably be carded for pointing out that absurdity but there you go.

Decent Skin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So you can be instructed to stop saying something provocative which is substantiated by academic research, but asking a serious contributor whether she's "straight or a man-hating lesbian?" is merely "not particularly" acceptable.

I'll probably be carded for pointing out that absurdity but there you go.

I didn't actually "ask" (because I don't actually care) I hypothetically asked in order to lead into the logical parallel to their stance.

And in fairness, even if I had asked, actually asking would be far less insulting than the assumptions and statements - and resulting contradicting me - posted, since man-hating would be merely obnoxious and not a vile criminal act.

And I also doubt that any credible academic research would try to contradict my own knowledge of myself and the facts.

Going back on-topic, this is exactly the issue that feminism and other "-isms" suffer from; they're generally so extreme and focussed on their own that they dismiss and alienate anyone with more moderate views.

I know that there is a flavour referred to as "militant feminism", but I have heard women who don't view themselves as extreme or militant claim that "sexism towards men is discrimination, but not actual sexism"

Which is quite frankly bonkers.

Many contributors to this thread have dismissed the Louise version as counterproductive and alienating, and that's good to see; if people just bloody well treated each other as equals without the need to put others down in order to climb over them then we'd all get on grand.

"Decent

"Decent wrote:

if people just bloody well treated each other as equals

well except for "man-hating lesbians".

I started off in this thread ripping the piss out of Louise O'Neill, now guys like you, and other posters/mods, are justifying her concerns.

If nothing else, your views are among the strongest arguments for modern feminism.

Decent Skin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

well except for "man-hating lesbians".

I started this thread ripping the piss out of mocking Louise O'Neill, now guys like you, and other posters, are actually justifying people like her.

Well if that subset of lesbians (or feminists for that matter) hate us, how can we treat them as equal ? And why should we ?

Our treatment of them is based on their prejudices and preconceptions, not on ours.

No idea how disliking being hated for no reason or called a potential rapist or whatever justifies someone who does just that ?

Take away their nutty delusions and there's no issue.

Try swapping the cart & horse there and you might get a clearer picture of who's at fault.

Decent Skin

Decent Skin wrote: »

Well if that subset of lesbians (or feminists for that matter) hate us, how can we treat them as equal ? And why should we ?

Our treatment of them is based on their prejudices and preconceptions, not on ours.

why imply that someone is a lesbian? If she's a man-hater, is that not sufficient to condemn her views?

Please enlighten us as to the relevance of whether a contributor is a lesbian?

Decent Skin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

why imply that someone is a lesbian? If she's a man-hater, is that not sufficient to condemn her views?

Please enlighten us as to the relevance of whether a contributor is a lesbian?

I did not imply anything.

Read the post that that was in; it's pretty clear, highlighting how "stats" cannot be applied to an individual and used to contradict their own knowledge of themselves.

Otherwise I'm bowing out so as to not get into trouble for keeping the off-topic stuff going.

Mind you, as you said it's your thread, so maybe that wouldn't apply - genuinely not sure.

Edit: You said you ".....started this thread ripping the piss out of mocking Louise O'Neil", but the OP isn't your name, so scratch that last bit.

Decent Skin

Decent Skin wrote: »

I did not imply anything.

Let's try this again. You asked if s/he were a "straight or a man-hating lesbian? "

Decent Skin wrote: »

Are you straight or a man-hating lesbian ?

what's the relevance of that person being a lesbian or otherwise?

Simple question. No need to derail the thread, just answer it?

Decent Skin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Let's try this again. You asked if s/he were a "straight or a man-hating lesbian? "

what's the relevance of that person being a lesbian or otherwise?

Simple question. No need to derail the thread, just answer it?

Read and quote the rest of the post. The answer's there in black & white.

Decent Skin wrote:

Read the post that that was in; it's pretty clear, highlighting how "stats" cannot be applied to an individual and used to contradict their own knowledge of themselves.

Decent Skin wrote:

If the latter, then because you are female you are "statistically more likely to have sex with a man", however I would never be such an annoying prick as to contradict you if you said that your likelihood of doing so was "zero", on the basis that that your sex and dodgy statistics were the only thing I could see in my world view.

Decent Skin

Decent Skin wrote: »

Read and quote the rest of the post. The answer's there in black & white.

ridiculous justification, in fairness.

It's like asking, 'Are you straight or a woman - hating gay?'

Which is probably an extremist lesbian position in fairness. As I said earlier, I think a lot of you guys have the very same illogical mindsets as Louise O'Neill, you're just coming at it from a different sex perspective.

Decent Skin

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

ridiculous justification, in fairness.

It's like asking, 'Are you straight or a woman - hating gay?'

Which is probably an extremist lesbian position in fairness. As I said earlier, I think a lot of you guys have the very same illogical mindsets as Louise O'Neill, you're just coming at it from a different sex perspective.

If that's what you think then there's no point me trying to correct you as you won't listen, so we'll leave it there.

livedadream

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I started off in this thread ripping the piss out of Louise O'Neill, now guys like you, and other posters/mods, are justifying her concerns.

try reading all the words in his post.

Decent Skin wrote: »

Edit: You said you ".....started this thread ripping the piss out of mocking Louise O'Neil", but the OP isn't your name, so scratch that last bit.

started off in this thread, not i started this thread. i hope the irony of you telling another posters to

Decent Skin wrote: »

Read the post that that was in; it's pretty clear,

isn't entirely lost on you. lolz

kunst nugget

Well, that quickly descended into a load of pointless bollocks…

Peregrine

Man-hating lesbians, eh?

Looks like we're done here.