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

Gravelly

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Ah, here.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

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?

Strange that you seem to think those mocking Donald Trump are gender specific.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Strange that you seem to think those mocking Donald Trump are gender specific.

I don't, jebus christ. You however seem to think that those mocking LON are solely men. Heaven forbid women would dare to mock your deity.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Some men feel threatened by her.

We’re also angry and bitter.

MikeyTaylor

So is she still going to help Laura Whitmore break America?

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

I don't think she's sexist.

Opinions usually can’t be wrong but somehow this one is.

super_furry

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

So is she still going to help Laura Whitmore break America?

America's already broken.

Omackeral

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

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

You’ve probably unwittingly provided the next thread title here.

Yeah_Right

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

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

It's to confuse a certain poster here so that she thinks there are multiple threads about LON.

The_Kew_Tour

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It's to confuse a certain poster here so that she thinks there are multiple threads about LON.

In that case change it away

Wibbs

Omackeral wrote: »

We’re also angry and bitter.

with small mickeys and no woman would look at us twice. Or once.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It's to confuse a certain poster here so that she thinks there are multiple threads about LON.

and she changes her name everytime she appears here but everyone knows its her every time

Wibbs

givyjoe wrote: »

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.

In that universe she inhabits women can't be sexist. Hence the blindspot.

Wibbs

Gravelly wrote: »

Ah, here.

I think she does TBH.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

In that universe she inhabits women can't be sexist. Hence the blindspot.

Thanks again for telling me what I believe. Again I must be mistaken because I thought I believed something different.

mzungu

CatFromHue wrote: »

As a person I don't care, equally I don't care about most musicians personalities.

As a musician he has made some brilliant songs, really really good stuff.

He does seem like a head the ball but equally All of the Lights and Jesus Walks are fantastic songs so I dunno

Not to drag this off topic, but any tune I have heard was pure crap! But sure, different strokes for different folks etc.

Deleted User wrote: »

Look. I get it. Matching Feminists with the myriad of sexist terms they've created over the last decade is foolish, but some of these terms are being accepted by more than social media fiends. There were a number of the women at the meeting who were highly-educated and I'd thought previously as being very intelligent people. And before anyone suggest this was a focus on Travellers... it wasn't. We have adult literacy classes for all social backgrounds, and have received trouble from a variety of backgrounds.

Some of these terms need to be addressed or they will be accepted into common language without any opposition. And as my favorite expression states:

"Language structures consciousness". We are deeply influenced by the words/phrases we use (or hear) and what we, ourselves, believe them to mean.

I'm not saying don't address it, far from it. All I objected to was labelling stuff "toxic femininity" as I would find it equally as barmy as "toxic masculinity."

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Having heard it in real life said by well educated and otherwise normal people, Im not so sure. While I take your point about not fighting idiocy with further idiocy, the scenario is that this narrative is going largely unchecked.

Ive heard it said that the reason it goes unchecked is because it is considered unmanly by society to stand up for men. Also men are taught to indulge the complaints of women but both men and women are taught to deride men who complain.

Some patriarchy weve built for ourselves lads. I sometimes feel like feminism is the school bully who grabs your hand, hits you in the face with your own hand and says "stop punching yourself".

Or looked at another way, toxic masculinity is the original victim blaming. We tell men not to be men and when tbey dont conform to the standards du jour we call them toxic.

IIRC there has been a few opinion columns questioning "toxic masculinity." Not many mind you, but there has been a few...mostly written by women. Perhaps women in the media feel more at ease questioning it than the men do? To go back to the article posted a few pages ago, I would expect nothing else from Sean Moncrieff et al. other than to toe the line of what is deemed the correct way of thinking. Everything now is through the lens of "toxic masculinity" and it does have a cult like fervour about it. But if one accepts that there is a "toxic masculinity", then one also has to accept that there is a "toxic femininity." Personally, I reject both.

Deleted User wrote: »

facetious? why>? Nothing I said is offensive, out of line or inaccurate.

I am genuinely tired of this attitude that men should just take the sexism that is being directed at our gender. Why? Just because we're men? If not that, then because it will simply go away in time?

But will it go away in time? Any evidence to support that belief? During my adult life, sexist remarks towards men regarding "male" behavior have increased dramatically, and it's not just in the media.

Ignoring Feminism in the US Academia allowed it to flourish and essentially take over. So, avoiding the issue didn't work there. And we can see the movements from metoo, weinstein, the Belfast case, where the behavior of a few are being used to paint our whole gender... and we should just take it?

Why? It doesn't work. If you remain silent about the stupidity of the philosophy behind these movements, you give automatic approval for them to spread, and become part of society on the common level.

Nah. I can't agree with this grin and bear it mentality anymore. It's not disappearing, it's not staying solely with a few nutty feminists or social media, and it is spreading into mainstream society. Without resistance, it will also make it into our educational system.

Nope. I'm not being facetious. I'm sick to the hilt of simply accepting sexism.

Not sure if that was aimed at my comment, but I was not suggesting taking it on the chin. I was merely pointing out I didn't agree with the methods.

Case in point:

Nearly 1 in 3 lesbian women, 1 in 2 bisexual women, and 1 in 4 heterosexual women has experienced at least one form of severe physical violence by an intimate partner in her lifetime.

Source: Black, M., Basile, K., Breiding, M., Smith, S., Walters, M., Merrick, M., and Stevens M. "National intimate partner and sexual violence survey." Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2011)

Women in lesbian relationships are more at risk than their heterosexual counterparts for experiencing domestic violence. Does this now mean that the label "toxic femininity" or "toxic lesbianism" can be attributed to these cases?

As above, I don't think it can. Merely a case of vile human beings acting like vile human beings. Although, if we follow the logic of "toxic masculinity", this is the path it leads you down.

Gravelly

Wibbs wrote: »

I think she does TBH.

I think she makes Louise O'Neill look positively Shakespearean.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

I'm not saying don't address it, far from it. All I objected to was labelling stuff "toxic femininity" as I would find it equally as barmy as "toxic masculinity."

As it should be. No, I do agree with you to an extent. I abhor this toxic masculinity phrase it's simply retarded. I find the people who use it to justify their statements to be incredibly ignorant of the facts.

However, I'm at a loss about how to fight against this anti-male movement which is spreading across the west, under the guise of being connected/approved by 'psychology'. These phrases are not staying online. Feminists are not staying on their hate filled blogs. These feminists messages or they themselves have managed to move into many positions of authority. These messages are making their way into our educational system. Into the legal system. And affecting the way that people consider men when they hear of any negative behavior. It's no longer the case that people dismiss crime as being something an individual does, but rather than it's an indication of how badly male culture (and male psychology) has developed.

In most cases where there is a campaign to promote equality, the message will be directed solely at womens issues, and the male gender will be put up as the responsible party. So, how do we deal with this?

I do think pulling the words being bandied about which have since entered a more serious acceptance should be applied to women in equal measure... If only to show how sexist and ignorant the whole thing is.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Thanks again for telling me what I believe. Again I must be mistaken because I thought I believed something different.

Well you don't believe LON is sexist, so what other explanation is there?

Does she have to explicitly state that she is indeed sexist for you to accept it? Are her own sexist statements not enough?

Sunny Disposition

givyjoe wrote: »

Well you don't believe LON is sexist, so what other explanation is there?

Does she have to explicitly state that she is indeed sexist for you to accept it? Are her own sexist statements not enough?

How would a woman be sexist FFS? Just because she is not chained to the kitchen sink and believes in equality the likes of you want to obliterate her message.
Well you can't. The light of truth is beginning to expose the depths of the patriarchy and LO'N is one of those carrying the torch.

Sunny Disposition

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

How would a woman be sexist FFS? Just because she is not chained to the kitchen sink and believes in equality the likes of you want to obliterate her message.

Well, lets wheel out the age old stereotypes to justify your own double standards.

Well you can't. The light of truth is beginning to expose the depths of the patriarchy and LO'N is one of those carrying the torch.

Oh my... You put me through the absolute giggles. Hilarious.

givyjoe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, lets wheel out the age old stereotypes to justify your own double standards.



Oh my... You put me through the absolute giggles. Hilarious.

The lad isn't serious... Is he?!

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

The lad isn't serious... Is he?!

He/She has done similar posts before... so I'm inclined to think they're in the same camp as Appledreams.

wexie

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

. The light of truth is beginning to expose the depths of the patriarchy and LO'N is one of those carrying the torch.

Sunny Disposition

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

How would a woman be sexist FFS? Just because she is not chained to the kitchen sink and believes in equality the likes of you want to obliterate her message.
Well you can't. The light of truth is beginning to expose the depths of the patriarchy and LO'N is one of those carrying the torch.

You are surely taking the p1ss, are you?

endacl

Deleted User wrote: »

You are surely taking the p1ss, are you?

Dunno. My patriarchy is pretty deep. I dropped a penny down it about half an hour ago and I still haven’t heard the splash.

givyjoe

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He/She has done similar posts before... so I'm inclined to think they're in the same camp as Appledreams.

That's my point, I thought it was a deliberate ott piss take

givyjoe

givyjoe wrote: »

That's my point, I thought it was a deliberate ott piss take

Well, I thought the same about some of LLMMLL's posts earlier, but then realised she was actually serious.

I think it's easier just to assume they're serious when they post this kind of rubbish, until they've established that they're not hardcore feminists. Or maybe I'm losing my sense of humor. That's possible too.

pjohnson

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

How would a woman be sexist FFS? Just because she is not chained to the kitchen sink and believes in equality the likes of you want to obliterate her message.
Well you can't. The light of truth is beginning to expose the depths of the patriarchy and LO'N is one of those carrying the torch.

8/10

Most buzzwords included. Missed "Rape Culture" and "My book".

Good attempt. Must do better.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Well you don't believe LON is sexist, so what other explanation is there?

Does she have to explicitly state that she is indeed sexist for you to accept it? Are her own sexist statements not enough?

He said I thought women cant be sexist. He didn't say I didn't think LON was sexist.....