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

RabbleRouser2k

kunst nugget wrote: »

The article is very biased and boring as fook - I gave up halfway. The thing is I didn't realise that the Carl Benjamin talked about in the article was Sargon of Akkad - one of the most vocal supporters of Gamergate and a pretty vicious critic of Sarkeesian and feminism. Him taking up the front rows of a women's panel at a games conference with a bunch of his followers was a move that was designed to provoke and it worked. And he gets to play the victim which is a win all around for him.

There's an interesting parallel for me between Sarkeesian and O'Neill in that 99.9% of time that I hear about them, it's because people are giving out about them, it's not from actually seeing or hearing them independently to that. I watched about 5-10 minutes of a Women vs Tropes (or whatever they are called) youtube videos, found it boring and got on with the rest of my life. It's her critics that ironically keep her relevant by constantly shít talking her - if they ignored, she disappear into obscurity. I guess some people need an Emmanuel Goldstein for their daily two minutes of hate.

True-sadly many of the anti-gamergaters also made themselves look like horrible human beings by dancing on the grave of Totalbiscuit when he died.
There was a really good, non-attack critique of the Women vs Tropes videos by a games dev who went into detail as to why Sarkeesian's research was heavily flawed.
The pool of selection was too small to make a decent analysis, and her own bias skewed the results. To me that was a better rebuttal on her. But I agree, ignore them, and they'll die...not literally, mind.

But sadly, the anti-GG'ers were just as bad as the GG'ers. Hence people went out of their way to avoid em.

kunst nugget

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

True-sadly many of the anti-gamergaters also made themselves look like horrible human beings by dancing on the grave of Totalbiscuit when he died.
There was a really good, non-attack critique of the Women vs Tropes videos by a games dev who went into detail as to why Sarkeesian's research was heavily flawed.
The pool of selection was too small to make a decent analysis, and her own bias skewed the results. To me that was a better rebuttal on her. But I agree, ignore them, and they'll die...not literally, mind.

But sadly, the anti-GG'ers were just as bad as the GG'ers. Hence people went out of their way to avoid em.

Nobody covers themselves in glory that aligns themselves to either side of that shítshow. Thankfully, the vast, vast majority of people that enjoy gaming don't give a fig about the toxic nonsense spewed by either side - it's mainly confined to the trogledytes from both extremes of the political spectrums insulting each other, doxxing and getting doxxed and generally playing the victim on Twitter. Thankfully, I don't bother with twitter so I don't see any of it besides the moaning that goes on here on boards.

Maxpfizer

kunst nugget wrote: »

The article is very biased and boring as fook - I gave up halfway. The thing is I didn't realise that the Carl Benjamin talked about in the article was Sargon of Akkad - one of the most vocal supporters of Gamergate and a pretty vicious critic of Sarkeesian and feminism. Him taking up the front rows of a women's panel at a games conference with a bunch of his followers was a move that was designed to provoke and it worked. And he gets to play the victim which is a win all around for him.

There's an interesting parallel for me between Sarkeesian and O'Neill in that 99.9% of time that I hear about them, it's because people are giving out about them, it's not from actually seeing or hearing them independently to that. I watched about 5-10 minutes of a Women vs Tropes (or whatever they are called) youtube videos, found it boring and got on with the rest of my life. It's her critics that ironically keep her relevant by constantly shít talking her - if they ignored, she disappear into obscurity. I guess some people need an Emmanuel Goldstein for their daily two minutes of hate.

I think this wouldn't happen quite so much if there was more mainstream, or at least more prominent, criticism of their views.

I always thought that about articles in The Guardian, when they had a comments section open. You would have a multiple paragraph article that would be thoroughly debunked within the first 10 comments by some internet randomer.

This became so common over so many websites but instead of giving some of these folks posting comments a more prominent spot to voice their criticisms they came up with the mantra that "the comments section on any article about Feminism is proof that we need Feminism". That's SO dishonest because it allows them to dismiss valid criticism.

When people see valid criticism being dismissed then it just causes them to give out even more.

Look at the tweet that started this whole thread off as an example:

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/928953179370328064

The problem is that she wants the Pay Gap to just be accepted and she wants to dismiss any objections. That's why people are giving out so much.

Folks feel like they are subjected to these articles or videos or tweets being shared but they don't have a platform to go back and say "all of this is total bullsh!t and here's why...". So they'll come to threads like this to give out because it's one of the only places you can give out.

Looking at LON's latest article there about women taking men's names after marriage I can see why people would object to the articles content. I would guess there would be objections to many of her articles and many of her books too. The thing is that the Irish Examiner will never give a voice to those objections so the views of LON are presented as the "correct" views.

A common response to this seems to be "we are starting a conversation" but that's not true. They are proselytizing and objections are confined to threads like this.

There's obviously an audience for these kind of rebuttals too.

The Youtuber Sargon of Akkad mentioned above has over 800,000 subscribers and his videos look like they go between 200k and 400k views.

His first 2 videos appeared in June 2013 and were both about Anita Sarkeesian. The first has 38K views and the second has 158k views.

The first one is only 4 minutes long and the sound quality is awful. However it's a pretty competent rebuttal to Sarkeesians points.

Fast forward to 2018 and he now has almost 600,000 more subscribers than Anita and her videos are rarely attracting more than 10k views compared to his 200k+.

People want to see opposition to some of these views but the mainstream outlets aren't giving it to them. There seems to be a tendency in the media to just give one side of the story and so you have forums and threads filled up with the other, untold, side.

This is illustrated quite well by Anita and Sargon. She gets one sided, more mainstream, attention and gets to put HER story out unchallenged while he is kind of left with people desperate to see her views challenged but without a mainstream representation.

Look at the Polygon article:https://www.polygon.com/platform/amp/features/2017/6/27/15880582/anita-sarkeesian-garbage-human-vidcon-interview

It's ridiculously one sided but that's OK because Polygon mostly has comments under their articles... oh... not on this article. So, again, you will have to find other places if you want to figure out what happened here and naturally those places are filled with people giving out.

RabbleRouser2k

Maxpfizer wrote: »

I think this wouldn't happen quite so much if there was more mainstream, or at least more prominent, criticism of their views.

A common response to this seems to be "we are starting a conversation" but that's not true. They are proselytizing and objections are confined to threads like this.

There's obviously an audience for these kind of rebuttals too.

The Youtuber Sargon of Akkad mentioned above has over 800,000 subscribers and his videos look like they go between 200k and 400k views.

His first 2 videos appeared in June 2013 and were both about Anita Sarkeesian. The first has 38K views and the second has 158k views.

The first one is only 4 minutes long and the sound quality is awful. However it's a pretty competent rebuttal to Sarkeesians points.

Fast forward to 2018 and he now has almost 600,000 more subscribers than Anita and her videos are rarely attracting more than 10k views compared to his 200k+.

People want to see opposition to some of these views but the mainstream outlets aren't giving it to them. There seems to be a tendency in the media to just give one side of the story and so you have forums and threads filled up with the other, untold, side.

This is illustrated quite well by Anita and Sargon. She gets one sided, more mainstream, attention and gets to put HER story out unchallenged while he is kind of left with people desperate to see her views challenged but without a mainstream representation.

It's ridiculously one sided but that's OK because Polygon mostly has comments under their articles... oh... not on this article. So, again, you will have to find other places if you want to figure out what happened here and naturally those places are filled with people giving out.

It's interesting how you note comments sections disappearing. I used to read Huffington Post, up until they redesigned the website, changed the logo, and removed the comments section.

After that, they started to have articles like 'Hillary lost because of Sexism-and here's the proof'...then would have other articles claiming Russia was at fault. Not allowing a rebuttal.
They have even deleted reporters, spontaneously, for going against the grain.

The site is widely mocked now-even John Oliver and SNL have had digs at it.

the purple tin

If O'Neill and Mullally both entered the thunderdome which one would be walking out?

Zulu

the purple tin wrote: »

If O'Neill and Mullally both entered the thunderdome which one would be walking out?

Well it was "two men enter, one man leaves", so I'm guessing you'd have to get the sorted lickety-splick before either of them would grace the thunderdome!

Ash.J.Williams

the purple tin wrote: »

If O'Neill and Mullally both entered the thunderdome which one would be walking out?

Wonder if they went to bill burr last night

Gravelly

the purple tin wrote: »

If O'Neill and Mullally both entered the thunderdome which one would be walking out?

Neither - Louise couldn't go because she had a book promotion in Grimsby that day, and Una boycotted it because it is a symbol of the patriarchal rape culture endemic to modern post-apocalyptic society.

KrustyUCC

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Louise O'Neill: Yes, this is going to be a column about women changing their name after they get married

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/lifestyle/features/louise-oneill-yes-this-is-going-to-be-a-column-about-women-changing-their-name-after-they-get-married-846541.html

Why did I read that. She actually boils my blood. My biggest issue is her refusal to hold individuals accountable. She even spells it out in this article

I am, however, hoping that I can critique the system without criticising individuals.

Fck that. Critique the individual. How else can you enact any change if we don't change it at an individual level. The system or society is made up of individuals. These sweeping generalisations stated as fact riddling that article are fckuing useless.

Is that really too much to ask?

No its not too much to ask!!!! Don't take your husband's name. Problem solved. Don't bother getting married at all if the traditions are too patriarchal for you. The bride making a speech has become common practice at weddings I've been to. Be the change you want to see Louise, stop fcuking moaning about it and blaming fantastical external forces.

Yeah_Right

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Wonder if they went to bill burr last night

I would pay a lot of money to watch LON try to have a conversation with Bill Burr about men, women, sexism, misogyny etc. It would be hilarious.

LLMMLL

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

(which always happens when a performer tries to go 'feminist'-see also Amy Schumer's current career)

Amy Schumer never “went feminist”.

Her sketch show was the most feminist thing she did and it was fairly successful.

Her stand up has barely any particularly feminist notions in it.

Out of the 3 movies she’s done, one had a feminist message, one was a caper, and one was a romcom. Only one was a success.

There’s zero link between feminism and any rise or fall in her career fortunes.

As for her career, it’s hardly in the doldrums. Her movies have flopped, but she can still sell our arena tours, and she’s nominated for a Tony award. I’d hardly call her a failure.

the purple tin

LLMMLL wrote: »

Amy Schumer never “went feminist”.

Her sketch show was the most feminist thing she did and it was fairly successful.

Her stand up has barely any particularly feminist notions in it.

Out of the 3 movies she’s done, one had a feminist message, one was a caper, and one was a romcom. Only one was a success.

There’s zero link between feminism and any rise or fall in her career fortunes.

As for her career, it’s hardly in the doldrums. Her movies have flopped, but she can still sell our arena tours, and she’s nominated for a Tony award. I’d hardly call her a failure.

Here Lou, d'ya reckon you could take Mullally in a no holds barred scrap?

Boom_Bap

LLMMLL wrote: »

Amy Schumer never “went feminist”.

Her sketch show was the most feminist thing she did and it was fairly successful.

Her stand up has barely any particularly feminist notions in it.

Out of the 3 movies she’s done, one had a feminist message, one was a caper, and one was a romcom. Only one was a success.

There’s zero link between feminism and any rise or fall in her career fortunes.

As for her career, it’s hardly in the doldrums. Her movies have flopped, but she can still sell our arena tours, and she’s nominated for a Tony award. I’d hardly call her a failure.

Schumer is not a great example of a feminist. She allegedly stole a number of jokes in her standup routines from other women. I'm saying allegedly, but the evidence is pretty damning and the other women who have been plagiarised have made comments about it.

KrustyUCC

Amy Schumer's alleged joke stealing, explained

It's hard to figure out where the so-called backlash ends and the genuine questions about her comedic integrity begin.

https://www.vox.com/2016/1/27/10839856/amy-schumer-joke-stealing

Is Louise O Neill Jealous of Una Mullally’s New Thread?

Hehe. Love it.

Somebody in the Boards office needs to create at least one persona here to set up thread after thread of misandry. It's depressing how women on Boards don't fight back against all these quotidian outbursts from angry, fat Incel, balding, computer nerd male weirdos with zero self-discipline who are being beaten everywhere in life from the LC to the professions by diligent, focused women. There.

Éirigí, mná na hÉireann!

Outlaw Pete

The premise of Amy's new film is actually quite funny but she was totally miscast in the role, as the crux of the story is that a really fat chick sustains a head injury and then deludedly thinks she's a babe and then we see what society's reaction to a such a woman behaving in that way might be.

But Amy's, what, 10-15lbs off being slim? And so almost every scene loses the essential criteria for it was written as being funny in the first damn place. Fair enough, she's not got a model face either, but again, is she really so far off being seen as being pretty that we should all think a scene suggesting someone who looks like she does would never be asked for their phone number or even get chatted up? As we asked to believe many times in the film? I certainly don't think so.

Truth is if Amy wasn't famous, majority of society wouldn't consider her fat or see her as being unattractive and she would have zero trouble getting guys (other than that her personality might put some off that is). So why cast her in a film where the character is supposed to be such a woman. No disrespect meant, but Rebel Wilson would have been much more suited to that part, as it would have been funny to see someone obese thinking that they're slim and then entering a wet t-shirt comp, or applying to work in a model agency, given that there would then be a genuine comedic element to it.

Boom_Bap

^ is that not the plot of Shallow Hal?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Hehe. Love it.

Somebody in the Boards office needs to create at least one persona here to set up thread after thread of misandry. It's depressing how women on Boards don't fight back against all these quotidian outbursts from angry, fat Incel, balding, computer nerd male weirdos with zero self-discipline who are being beaten everywhere in life from the LC to the professions by diligent, focused women. There.

Éirigí, mná na hÉireann!

I feel personally attacked by this post.

Gravelly

Deleted User wrote: »

I feel personally attacked by this post.

I want to know what Incel is, and whether I suffer from it.

Boom_Bap

Gravelly wrote: »

I want to know what Incel is, and whether I suffer from it.

Remember how ads for mouthwash talk about plaque in your teeth, Incel is the new buzzword for plaque*












*may or may not be true.

Gravelly

Gravelly wrote: »

I want to know what Incel is, and whether I suffer from it.

Do you really though?

It's some cutting edge internet lingo anyway..that's all I know..

Ulysses Gaze

Gravelly wrote: »

I want to know what Incel is, and whether I suffer from it.

Blokes that can't get laid.

kunst nugget

Gravelly wrote: »

I want to know what Incel is, and whether I suffer from it.

If you're a self hating virgin and you blame women for being uppity and not giving you the ride then you're an incel.

Iang87

I'd love to know what made this one so angry at the world.

She spouts utter shíte. She talks like she is from the 1860s. I don't doubt that women were historically treated like nothing more than something to use/see and never hear but Jesus we've moved on. The more someone like this keeps harping back to how things were, never for her mind you, I think she does more damage than highlighting any perceived imbalance. I say that because one day she may stumble on something that is genuinely grounds for a whinge and noone will listen to her.

My wife didn't take my name and I couldn't give a single **** about it. She briefly offered me an explanation once and I stopped her mid speech, she doesn't have to explain I married her for her regardless what she was called.

Incels are usually bullied into suicide. Of course they would have a less than rosy outlook on life.


Where is the compassion and the understanding?

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The premise of Amy's new film is actually quite funny but she was totally miscast in the role, as the crux of the story is that a really fat chick sustains a head injury and then deludedly thinks she's a babe and then we see what society's reaction to a such a woman behaving in that way might be.

But Amy's, what, 10-15lbs off being slim? And so almost every scene loses the essential criteria for it was written as being funny in the first damn place. Fair enough, she's not got a model face either, but again, is she really so far off being seen as being pretty that we should all think a scene suggesting someone who looks like she does would never be asked for their phone number or even get chatted up? As we asked to believe many times in the film? I certainly don't think so.

Truth is if Amy wasn't famous, majority of society wouldn't consider her fat or see her as being unattractive and she would have zero trouble getting guys (other than that her personality might put some off that is). So why cast her in a film where the character is supposed to be such a woman. No disrespect meant, but Rebel Wilson would have been much more suited to that part, as it would have been funny to see someone obese thinking that they're slim and then entering a wet t-shirt comp, or applying to work in a model agency, given that there would then be a genuine comedic element to it.

Well firstly I have to point out the movie was just plain awful, so I’m not defending it in that sense.

But I don’t think the point was having someone obese in the role. The role did seem to be designed for someone who’s decent looking but not Hollywood gorgeous, struggling with self esteem. I thought she was a reasonable choice for the role.

kunst nugget

Edz87 wrote: »

Incels are usually bullied into suicide. Of course they would have a less than rosy outlook on life.

Where is the compassion and the understanding?

Have you read the likes of incels.me and their blackpill nonsense? I might have some compassion if they weren't such hateful pricks.

Outlaw Pete

LLMMLL wrote: »

The role did seem to be designed for someone who’s decent looking but not Hollywood gorgeous, struggling with self esteem.

That would plausibly if the character received no negative reactions from society in the story, as then it would be a case of just being about how she sees herself, but that's not the case at all, as all throughout the film we see her being negatively looked upon as if she is either very unattractive or very overweight (the wet t-shirt comp scene for example of the latter). For example of the former, here's a scene where the premise is clearly that this is first time a guy has ever asked for her number:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvdlCPYSefc

recyclops

"Women are always the ones who are expected to sacrifice, to subsume their own needs and desires"

I wonder if Louise has ever met a bride who subsumes to their own needs and desires when organising a wedding ????

she should go on one of those facebook wedding groups and notice how completely imbalanced the entire wedding culture is towards women

RabbleRouser2k

LLMMLL wrote: »

Amy Schumer never “went feminist”.

Her sketch show was the most feminist thing she did and it was fairly successful.

Her stand up has barely any particularly feminist notions in it.

Out of the 3 movies she’s done, one had a feminist message, one was a caper, and one was a romcom. Only one was a success.

There’s zero link between feminism and any rise or fall in her career fortunes.

As for her career, it’s hardly in the doldrums. Her movies have flopped, but she can still sell our arena tours, and she’s nominated for a Tony award. I’d hardly call her a failure.

She also did Bud Light commercials with Seth Rogan that went full feminist, including mentioning topics such as 'the pay gap' and how 'women's products are more expensive than men's'.

The adverts were pulled due to diminishing sales on the beer.

As for the linkage--you only have to look at how she disavowed her old 'persona' and went full on feminist instead. The reason for her movies flopping was because her own fanbase turned against her.

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Schumer is not a great example of a feminist. She allegedly stole a number of jokes in her standup routines from other women. I'm saying allegedly, but the evidence is pretty damning and the other women who have been plagiarised have made comments about it.

Yeah, Kathleen Madigan, Tammy Pescatelli and more called her out. She blocks those who complain. Tammy Pescatelli's material was used in her Trainwreck movie.

To me the most egregious was when she stole from Patrice O Neal, who'd only been dead a few years, and Zach Galifiniakis who's album she claimed to be a massive fan of.
That was Carlos Mencia crap right there.