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

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Happier. She didn't mention it being mens fault.

She blames the patriarchy. Who's that then? Not the matriarchy anyway. The clue is in the name.

In fairness you're not great at summing up peoples beliefs. You've twice ascribed beliefs to me that were not at all what I believed.

In fairness you're a feminist, like your "statistics", your beliefs shift when they suit and are rarely enough stipulated upfront.

Wibbs

cantdecide wrote: »

Euphemism, or no?

Meh, it's the "Gooooood these people are so slow. Do they not understand the obvious? I'll throw in a frustrated sigh to hammer the point home" stuff. More of the usual deflection for the want of any argument that holds up to even the most basic of scrutiny.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

She blames the patriarchy. Who's that then? Not the matriarchy anyway. The clue is in the name. In fairness you're a feminist, like your "statistics", your beliefs shift when they suit and are rarely enough stipulated upfront.

Why would we believe anything you say about feminists. You've incorrectly stated two of my beliefs based on the fact that I'm a feminist.

Your tactic is to stick a label on someone you disagree with (feminist), then make up and ascribe to that person certain beliefs whether they're true or not.

There's been no shift in my statistics or beliefs. And I don't need to make up what someones beliefs are to win a debate.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Meh, it's the "Gooooood these people are so slow. Do they not understand the obvious? I'll throw in a frustrated sigh to hammer the point home" stuff. More of the usual deflection for the want of any argument that holds up to even the most basic of scrutiny.

I've produced two studies that back up my main points. Women are harrassed by men more than men are harrassed by women and men don't underreport more than women do.

But hey, just continue to ignore the parts of my posts that aren't convenient.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why would we believe anything you say about feminists.

Because my feminist recognition filter of "women are always agentless victims and it's always men's/the patriarchy's fault" hits the gong every single time. Be my guest and for fun point out anything you, or any feminist on this thread, or what Ms O'Neill has written that disagrees with this statement. That should cover it and it seems you feel you're up to that challenge. Work away.

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Because my feminist recognition filter of "women are always agentless victims and it's always men's/the patriarchy's fault" hits the gong every single time. Be my guest and for fun point out anything you, or any feminist on this thread, or what Ms O'Neill has written that disagrees with this statement. That should cover it and it seems you feel you're up to that challenge. Work away.

No problem, in response to your assertion that I believed that men are always the aggressors and women are always the victims I stated:

I've no problem with studies showing that in the case of domestic violence this may not be the case.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

No problem, in response to your assertion that I believed that men are always the aggressors and women are always the victims I stated:

So you don't believe that men are always the aggressors? Or you just dont have an issue with studies that MAY show that men are not always the aggressors?

MikeyTaylor

Should Laura Whitmore choose Iowa as the state she moves to in her bid to break America? I hear Des Moines is the best city in the world.

givyjoe

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

Should Laura Whitmore choose Iowa as the state she moves to in her bid to break America? I hear Des Moines is the best city in the world.

Mikey, that was at least 2 name changes ago!

deaddonkey15

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You actually think I scrolled through 6 years of her tweets?? Bless

You can search any Twitter account for any word in mere seconds.

For example, here's how many times Louise has said 'White men'.

It's ironic that the LON defenders were so up in arms about remarks on her appearance as opposed to her ideas whilst LON herself has a weird obsession and very prejudiced opinion of men she doesn't know who happen to have white skin.

The J Stands for Jay

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The have Wendy's, In N Out Burger, Good Burger.....it get's way more complicated in the USA.

Is my memory failing me, or are Wendy's burgers square?

wexie

McGaggs wrote: »

Is my memory failing me, or are Wendy's burgers square?

Are indeed, they do great chili as well...yummy

MikeyTaylor

givyjoe wrote: »

Mikey, that was at least 2 name changes ago!

Still, I'd pick Des Moines over Dublin or London anyday.

harry Bailey esq

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just a man?

Not necessarily, the post was a lesser known quote from Harry Callaghan, AKA Dirty Harry. The qoute itself is hardly inspiring. If 'Every man must know his own limits' civilisation would come to a standstill overnight. If people didn't 'feel lucky' from time to time, we'd get f*ck all done.

harry Bailey esq

py2006 wrote: »

Is there a word for people who cannot see/hear/read irony?

Americans

harry Bailey esq

harry Bailey esq wrote: »

Not necessarily, the post was a lesser known quote from Harry Callaghan, AKA Dirty Harry. The qoute itself is hardly inspiring. If 'Every man must know his own limits' civilisation would come to a standstill overnight. If people didn't 'feel lucky' from time to time, we'd get f*ck all done.

I'm in my 40s... trust me I know the movie and the quote. I was more referring to the follow up.

Wibbs

givyjoe wrote: »

So you don't believe that men are always the aggressors? Or you just dont have an issue with studies that MAY show that men are not always the aggressors?

Don't you just love the qualifier. Now if she had said: I've no problem with studies showing that in the case of domestic violence this is not the case. Big diff, but it's a tiny step that's almost instinctively too far and like instinct is rarely self questioned. Keep to the script, even when someone clearly is no basic intelligence fresh out of the womb person.

Of course if men are victims it's usually, if not almost certainly because of The Patriarchy™ ©. The Patriarchy™ © forces them not to look for help as it's not manly. The Patriarchy™ © influences the women to act out, or have been influenced by the "male role"(one reason given for Lesbian abuse by some). The Patriarchy™ © is held up for being responsible for male dissatisfaction, aggression, depression, suicide, abusive relationships, you name it. It's never women's fault or a Matriarchy ™ ©. Women who are confirmed abusers are seen as outliers, sick, or under the influence of men, victims even. Certainly no feminine agency going on. Well being agentless has its value. "Rights" with no responsibilities, like children. Whereas men who are confirmed abusers and the like are seen as expected examples of a wider reality of masculinity. Toxic masculinity as it were.

I suppose every faith needs its Devil and the feminist Devil has a cock and balls. Well except for the tamed gelded apologist males and they're often viewed with suspicion and often rightfully.

Boom_Bap

McGaggs wrote: »

Is my memory failing me, or are Wendy's burgers square?

I think that's Le Chatteaux Blanc you are thinking of...White Castle

Outlaw Pete

Last night's Panorama 'Getting a Fair Trial?' is something Louise (and the suemepaddy / ibelieveher brigade) could well do with watching.

You might need an add-on such as this to watch it

The J Stands for Jay

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I think that's Le Chatteaux Blanc you are thinking of...White Castle

Aren't they the really tiny burgers?

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

Don't you just love the qualifier. Now if she had said: I've no problem with studies showing that in the case of domestic violence this is not the case. Big diff, but it's a tiny step that's almost instinctively too far and like instinct is rarely self questioned. Keep to the script, even when someone clearly is no basic intelligence fresh out of the womb person.

Of course if men are victims it's usually, if not almost certainly because of The Patriarchy™ ©. The Patriarchy™ © forces them not to look for help as it's not manly. The Patriarchy™ © influences the women to act out, or have been influenced by the "male role"(one reason given for Lesbian abuse by some). The Patriarchy™ © is held up for being responsible for male dissatisfaction, aggression, depression, suicide, abusive relationships, you name it. It's never women's fault or a Matriarchy ™ ©. Women who are confirmed abusers are seen as outliers, sick, or under the influence of men, victims even. Certainly no feminine agency going on. Well being agentless has its value. "Rights" with no responsibilities, like children. Whereas men who are confirmed abusers and the like are seen as expected examples of a wider reality of masculinity. Toxic masculinity as it were.

I suppose every faith needs its Devil and the feminist Devil has a cock and balls. Well except for the tamed gelded apologist males and they're often viewed with suspicion and often rightfully.

No don't believe any of that. I said MAY because I've no idea what DV studies show. I know qualifying ones opinion until they've seen evidence may seem strange to someone who just makes up what other people Believe so he can argue against them but there you go.

A Pint of Goo

Has anyone told her that the patriarchy is responsible for putting food on her table, petrol in car, the fuel that heats the house she lives in, the roads she uses, pretty much everything that gives her a comfortable life?

Gravelly

Gravelly wrote: »

You are so right. When I read she was plagiarising reimagining The Little Mermaid, I was cowering under the table for 2 hours. My wife had to hunt me out of it with the mop handle.

The Little Mermaid is now triggering her.....a story wrote in 1837 :rolleyes:......and yet Louise still has nothing to say about that poor Irish girl that was raped out in Prague. That didnt trigger her in any way.

Coincidentally her partner in slime, Una Mullally is lamenting how dangerous it is to silence the arts (when it doesnt suit the libtards of course).... How ironic :rolleyes:

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/una-mullally-dangerous-and-grim-for-society-to-silence-arts-1.3478158

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

No don't believe any of that. I said MAY because I've no idea what DV studies show. I know qualifying ones opinion until they've seen evidence may seem strange to someone who just makes up what other people Believe so he can argue against them but there you go.

You do realise the link you provided in support of your sexual harassment of women position also contained stats on domestic abuse?

Report you linked earlier, but only partially read(in both senses of the word) wrote:

Violence by an Intimate Partner
• More than 1 in 3 women (35.6%)
and more than 1 in 4 men (28.5%) in the United States have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.
• Among victims of intimate partner violence, more than
1 in 3 women experienced multiple forms of rape, stalking, or physical violence; 92.1%
of male victims experienced physical violence alone, and 6.3% experienced physical violence and stalking.
• Nearly 1 in 10 women in the United States (9.4%) has been raped by an intimate partner in her lifetime, and an estimated 16.9% of women and 8.0% of men have experienced sexual violence other than rape by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime.
• About 1 in 4 women (24.3%) and 1 in 7 men (13.8%) have experienced severe physical violence by an intimate
partner (e.g., hit with a st
or something hard, beaten, slammed against something) at some point in their lifetime.
• An estimated 10.7% of women and 2.1% of men have been stalked by an intimate partner during their lifetime.
• Nearly half of all women and men in the United States have experienced psychological aggression by an intimate partner in their lifetime (48.4% and 48.8%, respectively).
• Most female and male victims of rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner (69% of female victims; 53% of male victims) experienced some form of intimate partner violence for the rst time before 25 years of age.

It's in the first few pages under Key Findings. Funny how you missed all that and funny how selective you are in what you hold up as "evidence" and chose to see as fact and what you leave out and choose to see as a maybe. Or don't even notice. All because of your particular grinding axe blinkered bias. So no different than any other true believer ist or ism out there really. The only difference is your ism gets more airplay and nods of acceptance among some of your fellow true believers in the media of late. QV Ms O'Neill.

backspin.

The patriarchy is a bit of a joke really. Look at this whole smear test scandal that has been headline news for about a week solid now. Can anyone imagine a similar furore if it was messed up prostate tests. Not a hope in hell. It would be lucky to get a mention once at about 6:45 on the 6.01 news.

backspin.

backspin. wrote: »

The patriarchy is a bit of a joke really. Look at this whole smear test scandal that has been headline news for about a week solid now. Can anyone imagine a similar furore if it was messed up prostate tests. Not a hope in hell. It would be lucky to get a mention once at about 6:45 on the 6.01 news.

And would women not have been part of this mess up too? Do they let them in analytical labs these times?

LLMMLL

Wibbs wrote: »

You do realise the link you provided in support of your sexual harassment of women position also contained stats on domestic abuse?



It's in the first few pages under Key Findings. Funny how you missed all that and funny how selective you are in what you hold up as "evidence" and chose to see as fact and what you leave out and choose to see as a maybe. Or don't even notice. All because of your particular grinding axe blinkered bias. So no different than any other true believer ist or ism out there really. The only difference is your ism gets more airplay and nods of acceptance among some of your fellow true believers in the media of late. QV Ms O'Neill.

I was asked to provide evidence that men sexually harrass women more than women sexually harrass men. Why would I include stats on DV which have nothing to do with sexual harrassment?

Instead of trying to catch me out by pretending that anyone would provide or check statistics unrelated to what they're debating you should just acknowledge that you were 100% wrong in describing my beliefs and maybe refrain from telling people what they believe in future. You're just digging a bigger and bigger hole now.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Coincidentally her partner in slime, Una Mullally is lamenting how dangerous it is to silence the arts (when it doesnt suit the libtards of course).... How ironic :rolleyes:

Behind a paywall but I imagine I'd agree with her to some degree.

Wibbs

LLMMLL wrote: »

I was asked to provide evidence that men sexually harrass women more than women sexually harrass men. Why would I include stats on DV which have nothing to do with sexual harrassment?

So you read that report looking for stats to back your repeated claim, yet completely missed all the other stats that showed other angles? I mean its all one one page, so hardly a trial. At least for one absorbing, or willing to absorb the bigger picture, outside of the women are always victims credo anyway. Oh wait...

Instead of trying to catch me out by pretending that anyone would provide or check statistics unrelated to what they're debating you should just acknowledge that you were 100% wrong in describing my beliefs and maybe refrain from telling people what they believe in future. You're just digging a bigger and bigger hole now.

As you may have noticed, indeed are repeating here, just because you say or believe it doesn't make it true. When I asked you for an example of where you didn't follow the party line of women being always victims etc you struggled and came up with a half arsed qualifier. I'm not the one that increasingly looks overly adept with a shovel.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Behind a paywall but I imagine I'd agree with her to some degree.

The arts are being constrained by them and their ilk. Upset by everything and anything but when a repeal mural is painted over all of a sudden they care about censorship? :rolleyes:

Here is Mullaly's article. You shouldnt have to pay for this rubbish

Una Mullally: Dangerous and grim for society to silence arts
Dublin City Council has cancelled literary event with theme of repeal of Eighth
about 18 hours ago


Comedian and author Tara Flynn was due with Emmet Kirwan, Elaine Feeney and Una Mullally to discuss an anthology about and issues around repealing the Eighth. However the event has been cancelled. Photograph: Cyril Byrne



On Friday morning, I stood outside the Amnesty Ireland office in Temple Bar watching the artist Maser paint his iconic Repeal mural on the side of the building, this time in yellow, the red one having been painted over on the wall of Project Arts Centre after the Charity Regulator intervened. We have a dire situation in Ireland right now where bodies such as the Charity Regulator are deciding what art is political, how it’s political, and when it’s acceptable.

The politics of art is something that could be debated forever. It’s about the politics. It’s also about what the art is saying, not whether it’s saying “something” or “anything”. Maser’s mural was obstructed first by planning laws, and then by the Charity Regulator. It’s about abortion. It’s about reproductive rights. It’s about women.

A Yes mural by the artist Sums One on the wall of Project Arts Centre during the marriage equality referendum campaign in 2015 faced nowhere near the level of opposition Maser experienced with his Repeal mural.

The politics of art is something that could be debated forever. It’s about the politics. It’s also about what the art is saying, not whether it’s saying 'something' or 'anything'
As I was watching Maser painting, another story was unfolding. I received a call from the programme director of the International Literature Festival Dublin (ILFD), a festival I was programmed in for an event called The Question of the Eighth on the back of my recently published best-selling anthology Repeal the 8th. At the festival, myself; the comedian and author Tara Flynn; the playwright, actor and poet Emmet Kirwan; and the poet Elaine Feeney were due to discuss the making of the anthology, protest art, how to write about the body and autonomy, the impact of the movement for reproductive rights on arts and culture in Ireland, and so on.


It was gearing up to be a great event. The festival programme was printed and distributed, and tickets were selling. It was an honour to have this book featured at the festival, alongside so many other great books and writers.

Miriam Lord: TDs draw line at images of Repeal artwork
Francisco Goya and ‘the greatest anti-war manifesto in all art’
Transgression used to be an artistic tactic. Now it belongs to the far right
Public funding
But the programme director had bad news. Dublin City Council had intervened and requested that the festival pull my event. The festival had no option but to comply. Dublin City Council is the festival’s key funder, and manages the event. The City arts officer, Ray Yeates, provided a statement which read, “The Question of the Eighth was scheduled as an event in Smock Alley Theatre on the 21st May, as part of the International Literature Festival Dublin. Unfortunately, this event has had to be cancelled at the request of Dublin City Council, who fund and manage the festival.

As with other public bodies, Dublin City Council cannot use public funding to support any side or appear to support any side of a referendum campaign. Council officials are also bound by the code of conduct for local authority employees to remain politically impartial. Scheduling this event as part of a council-funded festival was considered to be inconsistent with the obligations on the council and its officials.

Dublin City Council wishes to apologise to the event organisers and the patrons who have booked tickets and the writers invited to participate. Those who have bought tickets will be refunded.

My event was about a book. It was not a campaigning event. It was not a rally or a demonstration or a hustings. If I am said to be “taking a side”, then what does shutting down an event about a book look like? If there was an anthology out there by quality writers and artists such as the ones in my anthology that was reflecting Ireland from an anti-choice or religious point of view, and that had been scheduled at a literature festival, and a local authority shut it down, I would be equally outraged. We should not stop people using art to discuss our stories and our society.

Cultural event
My anthology features short stories, poetry, screenwriting, fiction, photography. The city arts officer, Ray Yeates, told me he hadn’t read the book, which is a shame, because the council seems to be cancelling a cultural event it does not know the content of. I would appreciate if people would be at least familiar with what they are seeking to shut down.

Interestingly, in 2015, the ILFD had an event around the lesbian love story graphic novel Blue Is the Warmest Colour which featured Ailbhe Smyth discussing LGBT rights and freedom of expression. This was seven days before the marriage equality referendum. Dublin City Council did not shut that event down.

We should not stop people using art to discuss our stories and our society
So where is the line? Will Dublin City Council make other interventions if guests at the festival speak about abortion, reproductive rights or the referendum? Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is one of main speakers this year. What if she mentions Repeal? Is the council worried what Ruby Wax will say at her event? Or Laurie Penny, who’s talk is titled Agency and Consent? Or Amanda Palmer, who in recent years while visiting Dublin played a free concert on the street outside a Well Woman clinic, voicing her support for women’s bodily autonomy here?

An entire year of publicly funded arts programming around the centenary of 1916 rejoiced in the revolutionary role of artists, poets and thinkers in our society. Well, it’s safe when we’re at a 100-year distance. This is the here and now. Artists must not be silenced. It’s a grim and dangerous society that does so.