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

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

An irony bypass is a certainty with zealots of any persuasion. It's a very good litmus test of zealotry.

Another litmus test for zealotry is labelling someone who doesn't agree with you a zealot. Is that irony or zealotry?

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

I agree it's.not solely enacted by men. Just for the vast vast majority.

Care to put some statistical significance to it?

cantdecide

LLMMLL wrote: »

As I've said whenever this comes up, men should not be harassed.

Could you even give a flying fiddlers fudge if men faced regular sexual harassment? Hypothetically, if there was a study that proved to you that you were all wrong all this time and that men actually faced more sexual harassment than women [purely hypothetically], would you have a split second to for anything that doesn't affect your in-group or would you just move onto another subject that did?

upandcumming

LLMMLL wrote: »

Well I'd like a culture shift where defensive men don't try and dismiss any concerns around sexual harrassment by pointing to that one time in 2008 a girl groped their ass in Coppers for a start.

Laura Whitmore: 'A man put his hand up my skirt in a nightclub and laughed'
COME ON LAURA! This happened last year - get over it already!

LLMMLL

cantdecide wrote: »

Could you even give a flying fiddlers fudge if men faced regular sexual harassment? Hypothetically, if there was a study that proved to you that you were all wrong all this time and that men actually faced more sexual harassment than women [purely hypothetically], would you have a split second to for anything that doesn't affect your in-group or would you just move onto another subject that did?

Actually the relevant study shows that men do face sexual harrassment relatively regularly. From other men. And yes I do think it's an issue.

cantdecide

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually the relevant study shows that men do face sexual harrassment relatively regularly. From other men. And yes I do think it's an issue.

Fibs. No hoots given.

LLMMLL

cantdecide wrote: »

Fibs. No hoots given.

If you say so.....

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually the relevant study shows that men do face sexual harrassment relatively regularly. From other men. And yes I do think it's an issue.

Do you seriously believe that men do not get harassed by women 'relatively regularly' too?! I'm asking because you seem to be implying that men being harassed is only from other men.

cantdecide

LLMMLL wrote: »

If you say so.....

No, because you say so.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually the relevant study shows that men do face sexual harrassment relatively regularly. From other men.

Only the bits that support 'muh narrative', right?

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Do you seriously believe that men do not get harassed by women 'relatively regularly' too?! I'm asking because you seem to be implying that men being harassed is only from other men.

According to a study of 75000 people (men and women) by the CDC both men and women were harrassed, and in both cases the harrassment was overwhelmingly done by men.

LLMMLL

cantdecide wrote: »

No, because you say so.



Only the bits that support 'muh narrative', right?

You say narrative, I say evidence.

Hector Bellend

How does she get almost 3500 worths of posts?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

You say narrative, I say evidence.

Except that you haven't provided any evidence to support your statement.

Oh, the CDC report states that men commit more sexual harassment than women (towards both genders), and it also states that women receive more sexual harassment than men. Nobody is arguing those points. These are all well accepted notions.

However, the above is not what you stated:

"Sexual harrassment is for the most part committed by males. It's a specifically male problem that is deserving of a term to describe it. There's no point pretending it's a people in general problem when it's actually not. Anyone is justified using the term "toxic masculinity" when describing Harvey Weinstein because that behaviour is confined to males."

But the behavior is not confined to males. Women engage in sexual harassment too. There's also women who abuse men due to the power difference. Just because the numbers reported are less, doesn't make it less of an issue. It's not confined to males.

Care to retract that statement, since it is incredibly inaccurate and could easily considered to be sexist?

I'm curious... do you believe that only men can be sexist, or can women also be sexist towards men?

Hector Bellend

Hector Bellend wrote: »

How does she get almost 3500 worths of posts?

who? LON?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Except that you haven't provided any evidence to support your statement.

Oh, the CDC report states that men commit more sexual harassment than women (towards both genders), and it also states that women receive more sexual harassment than men. Nobody is arguing those points. These are all well accepted notions.

However, the above is not what you stated:

"Sexual harrassment is for the most part committed by males. It's a specifically male problem that is deserving of a term to describe it. There's no point pretending it's a people in general problem when it's actually not. Anyone is justified using the term "toxic masculinity" when describing Harvey Weinstein because that behaviour is confined to males."

But the behavior is not confined to males. Women engage in sexual harassment too. There's also women who abuse men due to the power difference. Just because the numbers reported are less, doesn't make it less of an issue. It's not confined to males.

Care to retract that statement, since it is incredibly inaccurate and could easily considered to be sexist?

I'm curious... do you believe that only men can be sexist, or can women also be sexist towards men?

Ok I'll replace the statement that it's confined to males with "it's pretty much confined to males".

LLMMLL

Hector Bellend wrote: »

How does she get almost 3500 worths of posts?

Some men feel threatened by her.

Hector Bellend

Deleted User wrote: »

who? LON?

either or both of these?

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Another litmus test for zealotry is labelling someone who doesn't agree with you a zealot. Is that irony or zealotry?

You really don't understand irony do you? Or relevant comebacks. I'd have settled for pithy, but one lives in hope.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Actually the relevant study

Link please as I'd like to have a read of the breakdown in numbers. I suspect that because yes the majority of sexual harassment is from men towards women - something I don't disagree with BTW - women harassing men will be an overall minority. This does not mean that women don't harass men. I'd bet of the minority of men sexually harassed the majority of perps are not other men, but I'd like to see the breakdown of figures.

shows that men do face sexual harrassment relatively regularly. From other men. And yes I do think it's an issue.

Of course you do, because as a feminist your core belief is that women are always victims men are always to blame. Even if you acknowledge that men can sometimes be victims it's still men to blame. Hell, I'd bet the farm that if stats were to prove that even a small minority of women were harassing men you'd find some way to blame the "patriarchy". It would still be men's fault.

And yet you have the gall/irony to believe your politic isn't sexist? Oh sorry I forgot, women can't be sexist.

klaz wrote:

I'm curious... do you believe that only men can be sexist, or can women also be sexist towards men?

Like I said above no way will she believe that. At best, even if she does, it'll still be men's fault in some way, because the patriarchy influenced this minority of women or some such utter ballsology.

Hector Bellend

Hector Bellend wrote: »

either or both of these?

Ahh, the number of posts to the thread. LON is rather offensive about the male gender, and a variety of posters here talk about it. Oh, and our diehard feminist ambassadors have the some of the highest post counts. No big mystery.

cantdecide

Hector Bellend wrote: »

How does she get almost 3500 worths of posts?

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh, the number of posts to the thread. LON is rather offensive about the male gender, and a variety of posters here talk about it. Oh, and our diehard feminist ambassadors have the some of the highest post counts. No big mystery.

They say that she's a nobody but the truth is there's a LON supporter born every minute.

It's mainly entertainment!

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Some men feel threatened by her.

Or people, men and women, think she's a spoiled perpetual adolescent who comes out with certifiable nonsense but is given way too much exposure in the media.

Una Mullaly is a dyed in the wool feminist and in the mainstream media too, but she wouldn't sustain this level of posts for nearly so long. Why? Because while one might disagree with her on a few levels, she writes well and is consistent in her views with nary a "primal scream" to be seen. Hell she writes like a grown bloody adult and bear in mind there's only a couple of years in age between them.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Of course you do, because as a feminist your core belief is that women are always victims men are always to blame. Even if you acknowledge that men can sometimes be victims it's still men to blame. Hell, I'd bet the farm that if stats were to prove that even a small minority of women were harassing men you'd find some way to blame the "patriarchy". It would still be men's fault.

No that's not what I believe at all but thanks for informing me of my beliefs.

And yet you have the gall/irony to believe your politic isn't sexist? Oh sorry I forgot, women can't be sexist.

Nope don't believe that either. Thanks again for informing me of my beliefs. I thought I knew what o believed but obviously you know me better

givyjoe

Hector Bellend wrote: »

How does she get almost 3500 worths of posts?

About half the posts are from or in response to, the top poster on the thread and not actually about LON herself. See the last 3 pages.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Or people, men and women, think she's a spoiled perpetual adolescent who comes out with certifiable nonsense but is given way too much exposure in the media.

Una Mullaly is a dyed in the wool feminist and in the mainstream media too, but she wouldn't sustain this level of posts for nearly so long. Why? Because while one might disagree with her on a few levels, she writes well and is consistent in her views with nary a "primal scream" to be seen. Hell she writes like a grown bloody adult and bear in mind there's only a couple of years in age between them.

I'm pretty sure if I started a thread on UM with a few of her articles and some tweets and started drawing in stuff from her personal life then the threatened men would jump on her too. Unfortunately for Louise the threatened men have made her their cause celebre.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

I'm pretty sure if I started a thread on UM with a few of her articles and some tweets and started drawing in stuff from her personal life then the threatened men would jump on her too. Unfortunately for Louise the threatened men of boards have made her their cause celebre.

Where are you pulling this nonsense of 'threatened men' from? If you comment on a thread about a blatantly sexist male, would you be doing so because you are threatened by said sexist male or because you taken issue with their sexism?

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Where are you pulling this nonsense of 'threatened men' from? If you comment on a thread about a blatantly sexist male, would you be doing so because you are threatened by said sexist male or because you taken issue with their sexism?

I don't think she's sexist so I don't recognise your hypothetical scenario as being equivalent.

However, if I posted on a thread where I BELIEVED a man was sexist, if my post was mainly silly personal attacks based on tweets about his personal life then yes, it probably would be because I was threatened.

cantdecide

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't think she's sexist

givyjoe

[QUOTE=LLMMLL;106843425]I don't think she's sexist so I don't recognise your hypothetical scenario as being equivalent.

However, if I posted on a thread where I BELIEVED a man was sexist, if my post was mainly silly personal attacks based on tweets about his personal life then yes, it probably would be because I was threatened.[/QUOTE]

The part of your post is utterly ludicrous. Considering the absolute blatant sexist bollocks she has come out with, it's mind boggling that you would could come to a conclusion that she is NOT sexist. Serious fan denial right there.

You might do it because you are threatened, but I think most are simply mocking her and are far, far from threatened by her.

I suppose all the ladies mocking Donald Trump are just threatened by him then eh?

Cee-Jay-Cee

Completely off topic but why does the title of this thread keep changing???

givyjoe

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

Completely off topic but why does the title of this thread keep changing???

For the craic