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

cantdecide

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Doubt you want to see it any other way, tbh.

It's possible that he's formed his opinions on his own after considering the evidence.

givyjoe

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Doubt you want to see it any other way, tbh.

What has want, got to do with logic and reason?

Yer Da sells Avon

cantdecide wrote: »

It's possible that he's formed his opinions on his own after considering the evidence.

LOL, good one.

Omackeral

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

LOL, good one.

LON, good one

Wibbs

givyjoe wrote: »

What has want, got to do with logic and reason?

Little enough. It's a desire, a feeling. It's the tool of the dyed in wool feminist, so naturally its their goto as an explanation. Logic and reason require more brainpower and work.

Sweetemotion

Wibbs wrote: »

Little enough. It's a desire, a feeling. It's the tool of the dyed in wool feminist, so naturally its their goto as an explanation. Logic and reason require more brainpower and work.

Do you not think he is just trying to look for the ride?

He could do with being Wibbed.

Wibbs

professore wrote: »

Women judge men more on what they look like and how they dress than vice versa.

Eh, are you having a laugh here P? That's a pure nonsense. Women are far more judged on their appearance than men, by both men and women. Compare and contrast the trillion euro beauty and fashion industry. How much of that moola is generated by male grooming products? Eff all in the grand scheme of things.

Just look at famous male artists who basically can't sing but succeed because of their looks. Now try and think of female equivalents.

There is a long list of plain, even Joe Cocker level a face only a ma could love male singers and songwriters. Van Morrison was hardly a looker in his best days. Lemmy - may he be sharing a bottle of Jack with a deity somewhere - looked like he was pulled from a dumpster. That was in a ditch. On fire.

I like Avril Lavigne's music and happen to think she's really hot - but I was a fan way before I knew what she looked like. If her singing was bad I'd have no interest. Same with Susan Boyle.

You do remember the whole set up Susan Boyle Britain's got Special Needs TV show spot? She was laughed at because she looked like a barrel shaped nun with scary hair. She became famous because of her lack of looks.

Wibbs

Sweetemotion wrote: »

He could do with being Wibbed.

Nah, t'would be a monumental disappointment.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Logic and reason require more brainpower and work.

Which is sadly lacking in anti-feminists.

They can't criticise a woman's ideas without commenting on her looks/personal life.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

They can't criticise a woman's ideas without commenting on her looks/personal life.

Maybe they are being ironic?

RabbleRouser2k

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh, are you having a laugh here P? That's a pure nonsense. Women are far more judged on their appearance than men, by both men and women. Compare and contrast the trillion euro beauty and fashion industry. How much of that moola is generated by male grooming products? Eff all in the grand scheme of things.

There is a long list of plain, even Joe Cocker level a face only a ma could love male singers and songwriters. Van Morrison was hardly a looker in his best days. Lemmy - may he be sharing a bottle of Jack with a deity somewhere - looked like he was pulled from a dumpster. That was in a ditch. On fire.

You do remember the whole set up Susan Boyle Britain's got Special Needs TV show spot? She was laughed at because she looked like a barrel shaped nun with scary hair. She became famous because of her lack of looks.

True-you had a lot of female singers who rebelled against that-I think it was a partial reason as too why Sinead O'Connor shaved her head. Not all, partial.

Men are more visual creatures, that's sadly a core element of of our Dna. I say sadly, because external beauty fades, true eternal beauty is within.

That said, many of the deceased guy singers are immortalised largely because of their looks-Jim Morrison, Elvis Presley, Jeff Buckley, Michael Hutchence, Kurt Kobain. Yes, there is the music-but that's not why so many posters sell.

Ladies can be just as visually inclined as guys-the only thing is they'll be turned off a lot quicker for something guys will ignore.

LLMMLL wrote: »

Which is sadly lacking in anti-feminists.

They can't criticise a woman's ideas without commenting on her looks/personal life.

Mostly agree-comments on someone's looks are just playground bullying, tbh-keep it to the topics at hand.
Hypthethicals on her private life, barring those she has admitted to, are a bit below the belt for my liking. And yeah, I've made a few comments like that-but then again, I make those comments about everyone tbh.

cantdecide

LLMMLL wrote: »

Which is sadly lacking in anti-feminists.

They can't criticise a woman's ideas without commenting on her looks/personal life.

I think I've just had a vision of the next three pages of this thread.

Outlaw Pete

LLMMLL wrote: »

They can't criticise a woman's ideas without commenting on her looks/personal life.

Which is sadly lacking in anti-feminists.

No, that's something which can be lacking in people of all political persuasions. "Anti-feminists" far from have the monopoly on that. Look at any thread on Trump and you'll see many examples of it. You're just trying to use a brief digression by a few posters as a stick to beat us all with given that you weren't making much ground rebutting the points that were being made.

Jamiekelly

LLMMLL wrote: »

Which is sadly lacking in anti-feminists.

They can't criticise a woman's ideas without commenting on her looks/personal life.

Only 9 percent of women in the UK identify as feminists. So would 9 out of 10 women be suffering from too much toxic masculinity?

The reason no one wants to identify as feminist anymore is because of the absolute nonsense being spouted by the likes of LON and defended by you. Everything is someone elses fault, all men, the system, the patriarchy etc. When in fact most of the problems being "challenged" by modern feminists are either entirely made up or just outright fantasy (mansplaining, manspreading, toxic masculinity, rape culture).

You know, the middle east could do with some actual feminism, but it turns out that LON won't say a word about it and for a good reason. There's no profit to be made. More profitable to sell the idea of oppression to naive young women.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Which is sadly lacking in anti-feminists.

They can't criticise a woman's ideas without commenting on her looks/personal life.

Bollox. Absolute bollox. Or fanny if you prefer. Old school feminists who fought for equality deserve respect and admiration. These fools who vent about the patriarachy and rape culture in Ireland deserve derision. It's easy to do without commenting on their looks. I've zero time for any of these so-called 3rd wave radical feminists, one can easily take on their arguments without resorting to mocking their appearance.

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

No, that's something which can be lacking in people of all political persuasions. "Anti-feminists" far from have the monopoly on that. Look at any thread on Trump and you'll see many examples of it. You're just trying to use a brief digression by a few posters as a stick to beat us all with given that you weren't making much ground rebutting the points that were being made.

Wasn't making much ground? I used actual studies to show that men harass more than women do and to show that men don't underreport more than women do. At which point I was told I was to be ignored as they were two different studies (which makes zero sense as they were two different points) and then the topic moved onto how she looked in a photo.

LLMMLL

Let's be honest. About 60% of the posts about her are personal attacks and 30% are about what she doesn't tweet about. Maybe 10% try and deal with what she actually tweets about.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Let's be honest. About 60% of the posts about her are personal attacks and 30% are about what she doesn't tweet about. Maybe 10% try and deal with what she actually tweets about.

Here don't start with your numbers again, we're not long after that whole 20%-60% thing.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Here don't start with your numbers again, we're not long after that whole 20%-60% thing.

I know. Some people find interpreting numbers difficult. I'm sure there's a government program that could help them out....

I should use finger puppets to explain things.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

I know. Some people find interpreting numbers difficult. I'm sure there's a government program that could help them out....

I should use finger puppets to explain things.

Just as long as 0.5 of them involved in the program are women and 1/2 of them are men.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Just as long as 0.5 of them involved in the program are women and 1/2 of them are men.

Don't be saying things like that. The anti-feminists will think you're accusing 110% of men of being rapists.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

They can't criticise a woman's ideas without commenting on her looks/personal life.

Have you made your mind up on this btw numbers wise? Is it all ''anti-feminists'' or is it the 60%? Which one you going with? Or is this a new famed LLMMLL range we're dealing with, the classic 60%-100% range.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Have you made your mind up on this btw numbers wise? Is it all ''anti-feminists'' or is it the 60%? Which one you going with? Or is this a new famed LLMMLL range we're dealing with, the classic 60%-100% range.

I said 60% of posts not people. Again struggling with those numbers

professore

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh, are you having a laugh here P? That's a pure nonsense. Women are far more judged on their appearance than men, by both men and women. Compare and contrast the trillion euro beauty and fashion industry. How much of that moola is generated by male grooming products? Eff all in the grand scheme of things.

Women's insecurity vs mens don't give a **** is the main cause of this. I also think there is a strong element of projection in that this is how women think about men so they think men think the same. When they put on that slutty dress they want to be objectified - but by the hottest guy possible, not by Billy average.

Men SAY they want the hottest girl but in reality are haapy enough with average or below average looking women.

There is a long list of plain, even Joe Cocker level a face only a ma could love male singers and songwriters. Van Morrison was hardly a looker in his best days. Lemmy - may he be sharing a bottle of Jack with a deity somewhere - looked like he was pulled from a dumpster. That was in a ditch. On fire.

With generally bigger male fan groups than females. And again men are very bad at determining the type of men women actually find attractive. The neanderthal look seems to be attractive to a LOT of women. The metrosexual pretty boy look is far less popular with women than the media would have you believe.

You do remember the whole set up Susan Boyle Britain's got Special Needs TV show spot? She was laughed at because she looked like a barrel shaped nun with scary hair. She became famous because of her lack of looks.

I've been fed the narrative of men being visual creatures vs women caring about something else (what that something else is has never been defined) when everything I've seen in my 47 years on the planet contradicts this. This is an actual social construct.

Women will marry an ugly man for money but it's a tradeoff. And note I say marry. They won't **** an ugly or even above average man in the toilets of a nightclub. If he's poor short and ugly forget about it.

Also this is why feminists hate prostitution and want it illegal for men. It allows men like that to "cheat" the system.

Look at the film Shallow Hall. Half is shallow because he won't date a girl when he finds out she is so obese she breaks a seat in the restaurant by sitting on it. Reverse the genders and the film becomes ridiculous as noone would believe a woman would put up with a hugely obese man.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Let's be honest. About 60% of the posts about her are personal attacks and 30% are about what she doesn't tweet about. Maybe 10% try and deal with what she actually tweets about.

I really don't think statistics are your strength, so don't embarrass yourself further by trotting out more made up ones.

Omackeral

givyjoe wrote: »

I really don't think statistics are your strength, so don't embarrass yourself further by trotting out more made up ones.

It's pretty much this.



Always includes the 60% too. LLMMLL isn't LON, she's Brian Fantana.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

I really don't think statistics are your strength, so don't embarrass yourself further by trotting out more made up ones.

Ah come on. You're the guy who can't tell the difference between 20-60% and "more than half".

Or that sexual assault and sexual harrassment are different things.

I really must invest in those finger puppets for this thread.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ah come on. You're the guy who can't tell the difference between 20-60% and "more than half".

Or that sexual assault and sexual harrassment are different things.

I really must invest in those finger puppets for this thread.

Dear lord, you really are something else.

Sorry but you are the one who spouted unverifiable statistics, then started spouting nonsense that 'oh i actually meant across a range' :rolleyes: As if stating that a completely plucked from the sky stat is somehow statistically significant. You do realise the top end of your range, i.e. 60% is more than half?

Now you come up with more crap, 60/30/10 made up numbers on those supposedly personally attacking LON instead, seemingly because 2 or 3 posts out the the last what, 100, comment on her appearance.

Again on this sexual assault v harassment, I specifically corrected that at the time and repeatedly drew your attention to it while you 'had your fingers in ears' calling me a liar and dishonest.

And yet again, you make another pathetic post insinuating a lack of intelligence. Seriously, you should take a long hard look at your own posts making those kind of comments about others.

At this point I can only assume you're trying to annoy people until they stop engaging with you or the thread entirely.

KrustyUCC

Some of Louise's intereview in the Sindo yesterday

https://www.independent.ie/life/louise-oneill-sometimes-i-dont-quite-live-up-to-maybe-what-i-would-like-to-be-but-thats-ok-too-36857325.html

Louise wrote in The Guardian in January 2015: "While identifying as a feminist, I starved myself and made myself vomit after meals in order to satisfy an idea of what I thought an attractive woman should look like. I called myself a feminist, but, in truth, I was buying into the patriarchy. I was internalising all of that misogyny, making it my own, making it my truth, and I didn't even realise it."

How did you stop internalising the misogyny?

"I think the most important step is acknowledging that we all have internalised some misogyny, men and women alike," she says. "None of us exist in a vacuum - we've all been raised in this murky mire of patriarchal standards and beliefs, and it would be almost impossible for us to emerge unscathed.

"Recognising that is key. It's something I still do every day, observing any thoughts that arise that aren't helpful in a feminist capacity, and making a conscious decision to challenge and dismiss them. I also believe that once the blinkers are off and you see how deeply ingrained misogyny is in every tenet of our society, it is very difficult to 'unsee' it."

"I think it's more important than ever to call yourself a feminist in Ireland in 2018," Louise says, "and that goes for men and women. Ireland is a wonderful country and one that I'm very proud to call home, but it can sometimes feel like a hostile environment to women."

Boom_Bap

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Some of Louise's intereview in the Sindo yesterday

https://www.independent.ie/life/louise-oneill-sometimes-i-dont-quite-live-up-to-maybe-what-i-would-like-to-be-but-thats-ok-too-36857325.html

Louise wrote in The Guardian in January 2015: "While identifying as a feminist, I starved myself and made myself vomit after meals in order to satisfy an idea of what I thought an attractive woman should look like. I called myself a feminist, but, in truth, I was buying into the patriarchy. I was internalising all of that misogyny, making it my own, making it my truth, and I didn't even realise it."

How did you stop internalising the misogyny?

"I think the most important step is acknowledging that we all have internalised some misogyny, men and women alike," she says. "None of us exist in a vacuum - we've all been raised in this murky mire of patriarchal standards and beliefs, and it would be almost impossible for us to emerge unscathed.

"Recognising that is key. It's something I still do every day, observing any thoughts that arise that aren't helpful in a feminist capacity, and making a conscious decision to challenge and dismiss them. I also believe that once the blinkers are off and you see how deeply ingrained misogyny is in every tenet of our society, it is very difficult to 'unsee' it."

"I think it's more important than ever to call yourself a feminist in Ireland in 2018," Louise says, "and that goes for men and women. Ireland is a wonderful country and one that I'm very proud to call home, but it can sometimes feel like a hostile environment to women."

F'sake, nothing to help solve the burger debate.