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

Although it pains me to say it after being labeled earlier, I'm actually in agreement with Lou on this..you can't really expect her to comment on every situation that involves a woman..

I'm reminded of that "Taylor Swift 's silence on string theory suggests she supports loop quantum gravity" meme from a while ago..

DickSwiveller

Deleted User wrote: »

Although it pains me to say it after being labeled earlier, I'm actually in agreement with Lou on this..you can't really expect her to comment on every situation that involves a woman..

I'm reminded of that "Taylor Swift 's silence on string theory suggests she supports loop quantum gravity" meme from a while ago..

If you're whole career revolves around highlighting, discussing and campaigning on issues relating to violence against women then it is bizarre not to even mention the mass rape of girls that has taken place in Britain, our nearest neighbour, in the past 20 years.

Outlaw Pete

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s to highlight the hypocrisy of those who claim that because LON doesn’t campaign about issues facing women in the Middle East (for example) then she doesn’t care about these issues. The vast majority of anti-feminists on that list I created either posted that opinion or thanked a post that expressed it.

They think that LON doesn’t care about middle eastern women. So by their own standards they don’t care about men’s rights.

How. Many. Times. There is no hypocrisy there! You're just repeating what you have already said ffs!

For the last time: the majority of the posters you cited have condemned Louise for things which they feel she is incorrect about. Like her contention that there is a rape culture in Ireland, that there's a wage gap as a result of gender inequality, that women can't be sexist towards men etc etc. NONE of those criticisms have anything whatsoever to do with men's rights, and so you are making a false equivalency by suggesting that posters are being hypocritical.

You would only have a case for hypocrisy if posters on here had no problem with the likes of say Amy Schumer, or Emma Watson or Lena Dunham etc, spouting the same crap as she does. As you see THAT is what Louise is being accused of: BEING SELECTIVE about the examples of sexism and rape culture she cites in order to stay on message, which is of course that straight white men / the ever elusive patriarchy are the cause of all western society's ills.

Omackeral

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think I object to being called an anti-feminist..

I refuted it despite making LLMMLL’s list with a logical and true stance on how I’m not an anti-feminist and of course it wasn’t replied to because it possibly cant be as I’m not anti-female whatsoever. You go against or take umbrage with one of these modern radfems, you’re against women apparently. Bollox or fanny to that. I’ll ask again, what current legal boundaries do women face that men don’t in this country in 2018?

Also, someone said how come posters from here don’t post in the Men’s Rights threads in the Gentleman’s Club. I didn’t even know that was a forum.

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

I refuted it despite making LLMMLL’s list with a logical and true stance on how I’m not an anti-feminist and of course it wasn’t replied to because it possibly cant be as I’m not anti-female whatsoever. You go against or take umbrage with one of these modern radfems, you’re against women apparently. Bollox or fanny to that. I’ll ask again, what current legal boundaries do women face that men don’t in this country in 2018?

Also, someone said how come posters from here don’t post in the Men’s Rights threads in the Gentleman’s Club. I didn’t even know that was a forum.

Yeah..I dunno..

I suppose I kind of am, in relation to this new fangled third wave sh1te..not anti women, mind you..

I'm half thinking of putting it on a t shirt..

Omackeral

Omackeral wrote: »

I refuted it despite making LLMMLL’s list with a logical and true stance on how I’m not an anti-feminist and of course it wasn’t replied to because it possibly cant be as I’m not anti-female whatsoever. You go against or take umbrage with one of these modern radfems, you’re against women apparently. Bollox or fanny to that. I’ll ask again, what current legal boundaries do women face that men don’t in this country in 2018?

Also, someone said how come posters from here don’t post in the Men’s Rights threads in the Gentleman’s Club. I didn’t even know that was a forum.

Anti-Feminist doesn't have to mean anti-female. And while I am against most modern feminism, I'm completely in favor of women gaining equal rights with men. So, in terms of liking feminism, I'd be a feminist up until they achieved most forms of equality. Which they have.

I turn anti-feminist when it comes to this creation of victim mentality in women, seeking an almost legal/official recognition of women as victims (before any crime is even committed), this harping on about females not excelling in various fields, but ignoring the falling of boys behind in education or other areas. I object to the hypocrisy of modern feminism. The oft repeated declaration that they're seeking equality but their focus on women's rights going far beyond those of men. (I don't mind feminists seeking to better womens lives, but the spin annoys the crap out of me). I also get annoyed at the use of color or transgenders to promote their agendas but have a terrible record in actually seeking equal rights for them beyond the advertising. [Hell, most such organisations disavow any connection with feminists, and don't want to be associated].

Anti-women? Christ no.. I love women. And I object to feminism because I don't see it as improving women's lives anymore. It's a lot like the unions. Apart from the occasional serious issue, they've mostly served their purpose and now make more trouble just to keep relevant.

I’ll ask again, what current legal boundaries do women face that men don’t in this country in 2018?

I've also asked this in multiple threads, and been soundly ignored. Even though most of what I write is taken apart, that question tends to be ignored. Would love to have a feminist give a serious answer to it.. but it probably would remove most of their cause for existence.

johnnyskeleton

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/man-guilty-of-raping-woman-he-met-on-online-dating-app-1.3535216?mode=amp

This is an interesting case. The complainant withdrew consent during intercourse and the accused knew she was no longer consenting but continued anyway. The jury had no hesitation finding him guilty of rape.

Whatever you may want to say about the system, rape culture etc, what seems clear is that juries dont have any difficulty understanding consent.

Would consent classes have made a difference for this guy? Its hard to say. Difficult to believe, as the jury clearly didnt, that he honestly belived that there was consent.

DickSwiveller

This consent classes nonsense is just another tool utilised by the man-hating feminist machine. It assumes that men are pre-conditioned to mistreat women and need to be taught how to control their sinister urges.

I finished University a few years ago. While I was there a group of loony feminists within the law department tried to make these classes compulsory. I explained to the organiser (A horrible witch) that I wouldn't be taking part and that I thought it was wrong to compel people to attend. She reported me to the head of the Department, accusing me of hate speech and making other students unsafe. This is what your dealing with with the people who organise these things. They are fanatics, and should be opposed by all right thinking people

TBH the area of consent regarding sex is pretty clear. If a woman (or man) says no to sex, or tells someone to stop during sex, then there is no consent. Anything beyond that is clearly rape.

The issue blurs when women (or men) consider other forms of communicating no consent other than verbal. When they feel that using subtle body language, and the other person should just know that the consent has been withdrawn. Many people are just obvious during sex (passion, focus, whatever) to anything except verbal cues. TBH I don't see why we should be encouraging people to seek other methods to communicate these things. Get people to speak their consent or withdrawal of it. Keep it simple and direct.

This really shouldn't be made into a complicated issue. Keep the rules clear and easy to understand. Those who break them should be charged with rape. However, we should also be encouraging people to be more careful about the signals they send. If someone says yes to sex, then demands them to stop, and then asks to continue... that's looking for trouble.

Consent classes? More like sex-ed mixed with acting sensible for both genders.

And some people will always ignore the rules, laws, or social/cultural conventions. What we can do, is make it easily understandable as what constitutes rape... and minimize it in mainstream society.

DickSwiveller

Deleted User wrote: »

TBH the area of consent regarding sex is pretty clear. If a woman (or man) says no to sex, or tells someone to stop during sex, then there is no consent. Anything beyond that is clearly rape.

The issue blurs when women (or men) consider other forms of communicating no consent other than verbal. When they feel that using subtle body language, and the other person should just know that the consent has been withdrawn. Many people are just obvious during sex (passion, focus, whatever) to anything except verbal cues. TBH I don't see why we should be encouraging people to seek other methods to communicate these things. Get people to speak their consent or withdrawal of it. Keep it simple and direct.

This really shouldn't be made into a complicated issue. Keep the rules clear and easy to understand. Those who break them should be charged with rape. However, we should also be encouraging people to be more careful about the signals they send. If someone says yes to sex, then demands them to stop, and then asks to continue... that's looking for trouble.

Consent classes? More like sex-ed mixed with acting sensible for both genders.

And some people will always ignore the rules, laws, or social/cultural conventions. What we can do, is make it easily understandable as what constitutes rape... and minimize it in mainstream society.

It's not really that simple, though. As politically incorrect it is to say it, there are different types of No. For example, a woman might say No in a playful manner, trying to entice her partner to try harder. It's not as simple as No means No.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

I refuted it despite making LLMMLL’s list with a logical and true stance on how I’m not an anti-feminist and of course it wasn’t replied to because it possibly cant be as I’m not anti-female whatsoever. You go against or take umbrage with one of these modern radfems, you’re against women apparently. Bollox or fanny to that. I’ll ask again, what current legal boundaries do women face that men don’t in this country in 2018?

Also, someone said how come posters from here don’t post in the Men’s Rights threads in the Gentleman’s Club. I didn’t even know that was a forum.

Someone doesn’t know the difference between feminist and female. Would have through that’d be pretty basic for anyone on the thread to know.

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How. Many. Times. There is no hypocrisy there! You're just repeating what you have already said ffs!

For the last time: the majority of the posters you cited have condemned Louise for things which they feel she is incorrect about. Like her contention that there is a rape culture in Ireland, that there's a wage gap as a result of gender inequality, that women can't be sexist towards men etc etc. NONE of those criticisms have anything whatsoever to do with men's rights, and so you are making a false equivalency by suggesting that posters are being hypocritical.

You would only have a case for hypocrisy if posters on here had no problem with the likes of say Amy Schumer, or Emma Watson or Lena Dunham etc, spouting the same crap as she does. As you see THAT is what Louise is being accused of: BEING SELECTIVE about the examples of sexism and rape culture she cites in order to stay on message, which is of course that straight white men / the ever elusive patriarchy are the cause of all western society's ills.

If the posters who think that LON is racist or only cares about western white women because she doesn’t campaign on issues in the developing world are happy to admit they don’t care about men’s rights then that’s fine.

But other posters such as klaz have said that guys on this thread are interested. But the standards of many of these guys for LON is “if you don’t post/tweet about something then you don’t care about it”. Since practically nobody here posts in the men’s rights thread then by their own standards they don’t care about men’s rights.

DickSwiveller

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If you're whole career revolves around highlighting, discussing and campaigning on issues relating to violence against women then it is bizarre not to even mention the mass rape of girls that has taken place in Britain, our nearest neighbour, in the past 20 years.

Ah now what are you talking about? "Baby its cold outside" could be re-released this coming winter and Louise needs to be well ready in advance for this earthquake :pac:

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/world-premiere-asking-for-it-play-4064223-Jun2018/

Ah, shes a good troll our Louise is.



Maybe they were asleep?

Or deep down, they think like the rest of us that its a pile of shít perhaps?

DickSwiveller

LLMMLL wrote: »

If the posters who think that LON is racist or only cares about western white women because she doesn’t campaign on issues in the developing world are happy to admit they don’t care about men’s rights then that’s fine.

But other posters such as klaz have said that guys on this thread are interested. But the standards of many of these guys for LON is “if you don’t post/tweet about something then you don’t care about it”. Since practically nobody here posts in the men’s rights thread then by their own standards they don’t care about men’s rights.

I repeat:

If you're whole career revolves around highlighting, discussing and campaigning on issues relating to violence against women then it is bizarre not to even mention the mass rape of girls that has taken place in Britain, our nearest neighbour, in the past 20 years.

If I find out that Rabble Rouser has written books, given talks, been given a platform by RTE, and endlessly sought virtue points on twitter in his quest to highlight issues men face, then I'll criticize him for not addressing the Men's rights movement.

DickSwiveller

DickSwiveller wrote: »

It's not really that simple, though. As politically incorrect it is to say it, there are different types of No. For example, a woman might say No in a playful manner, trying to entice her partner to try harder. It's not as simple as No means No.

In my experience, the women who tend to do this already have a relationship with me (no, not girlfriend, but an established dating environment). With a stranger or a particularly new intimate partner, I don't play those games. The chance for miscommunication or misinterpretation is too high, and honestly, I felt it was too high a chance 20 years ago too.

I tend to have a "safe" word as part of sex. Usually "stop" being the clearest word. It sounds odd, and perhaps takes a bit away from the adventure or romance, but it's better to have a particular word which definitely means stop. But you're completely correct that many women like to play with "no"... I stop, she encourages me to continue, she says no again, etc, and then she gets frustrated at my being so timid or gentle. No doesn't always mean no. But it should.

However, in this day and age, especially considering the way society is going regarding rape, and the increase in false (or simply confused) rape claims... I think it's better to play safe. Sex isn't really very difficult to find, and its better to hold out for someone who isn't setting you up for a possible rape claim.

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller wrote: »

I repeat:

If you're whole career revolves around highlighting, discussing and campaigning on issues relating to violence against women then it is bizarre not to even mention the mass rape of girls that has taken place in Britain, our nearest neighbour, in the past 20 years.

If I find out that Rabble Rouser has written books, given talks, been given a platform by RTE, and endlessly sought virtue points on twitter in his quest to highlight issues men face, then I'll criticize him for not addressing the Men's rights movement.

Would you be critical of UK campaigners who don’t mention Irish cases?

What about French cases? They’re pretty close to the UK. Should UK campaigners be highlighting French cases?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Would you be critical of UK campaigners who don’t mention Irish cases?

What about French cases? They’re pretty close to the UK. Should UK campaigners be highlighting French cases?

What are you scraping the barrel for now? Surely the floor is gone out of the barrel at this stage no?

She is a feminist who is 'horrified' by 'atrocities' against women is she not? So id find it very hard to believe that someone with such strong opinions would isolate those opinions to a small island off the atlantic where she happens to be from instead of perceiving it to be a global problem?

Or perhaps she feels they are all 'woke boys' in the UK and France? Also many of her Irish 'sisters' who she shares such pain with, may work and live in the UK or France....so is she not concerned for their safety? :rolleyes:

Dave Cullen rightly rips into the idiot roughly half way through this video for anyone interested. Apologies if it has been posted already

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGAa61J0OZg

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What are you scraping the barrel for now? Surely the floor is gone out of the barrel at this stage no?

She is a feminist who is 'horrified' by 'atrocities' against women is she not? So id find it very hard to believe that someone with such strong opinions would isolate those opinions to a small island off the atlantic where she happens to be from instead of perceiving it to be a global problem?

Or perhaps she feels they are all 'woke boys' in the UK and France? Also many of her Irish 'sisters' who she shares such pain with, may work and live in the UK or France....so is she not concerned for their safety? :rolleyes:

So you would or wouldn’t be critical of UK campaigners who don’t talk about Irish cases?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So you would or wouldn’t be critical of UK campaigners who don’t talk about Irish cases?

If they are feminist than surely every global issue should be of concern to them?? Otherwise they are just picking and choosing their bullshít. What irish cases exactly should they be triggered by as opposed to the stoning of 1000 women to death in say Pakistan where womens rights are a serious issue?

Dont worry about not coming back with a valid response. I dont expect it from you.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If they are feminist than surely every global issue should be of concern to them?? Otherwise they are just picking and choosing their bullshít. What irish cases exactly should they be triggered by as opposed to the stoning of 1000 women to death in say Pakistan where womens rights are a serious issue?

Dont worry about not coming back with a valid response. I dont expect it from you.

Would you say you post more about Irish issues than uk/French/ Pakistan issues?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Would you say you post more about Irish issues than uk/French/ Pakistan issues?

What tangent are you seriously going off on? The discussion is about a hypocrite called Louise o'neill who has somehow in this fúcked up country we are living in, managed to carve a career for herself out of wanton fabrications of patriarchy, 'rape culture', and other 3rd wave feminist búll****.

In the meantime, women are actually treated like dogs in mostly islamic countries and increasing throughout Europe, and surprise, surprise, Louise cant muster any shock or give any opinion on these matters

What part of this do you not get? Keep up.

3rd wave feminists whole agenda is based on an outdated oppression of the white man in the western world where women have considerable rights and are very much equals in the eyes of the law but Louise and her crew of idiots choose to conveniently ignore countries where women cant even show their faces because lets be quite honest, for all of their hot wind, they couldnt give a flying fúck

DickSwiveller

LLMMLL wrote: »

Would you say you post more about Irish issues than uk/French/ Pakistan issues?

You have an answer for everything.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What tangent are you seriously going off on? The discussion is about a hypocrite called Louise o'neill who has somehow in this fúcked up country we are living in, managed to carve a career for herself out of wanton fabrications of patriarchy, 'rape culture', and other 3rd wave feminist búll****.

In the meantime, women are actually treated like dogs in mostly islamic countries and increasing throughout Europe, and surprise, surprise, Louise cant muster any shock or give any opinion on these matters

What part of this do you not get? Keep up.

3rd wave feminists whole agenda is based on an outdated oppression of the white man in the western world where women have considerable rights and are very much equals in the eyes of the law but Louise and her crew of idiots choose to conveniently ignore countries where women cant even show their faces because lets be quite honest, for all of their hot wind, they couldnt give a flying fúck

Why do you focus on LON? Surely you should equally post about UK feminist/ French feminists etc.

Is it maybe because she’s Irish and that gives you more exposure to her and interest in her commentary? Is it maybe because she deals with Irish society and that’s what you’re most interested in?

Does the fact that you’ve got hundreds of posts on LON and not a particular UK franchise or even Pakistani feminist mean that you don’t have any issue with them?

LLMMLL

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You have an answer for everything.

Thank you

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Why do you focus on LON? Surely you should equally post about UK feminist/ French feminists etc.

Is it maybe because she’s Irish and that gives you more exposure to her and interest in her commentary? Is it maybe because she deals with Irish society and that’s what you’re most interested in?

Does the fact that you’ve got hundreds of posts on LON and not a particular UK franchise or even Pakistani feminist mean that you don’t have any issue with them?

Errr. because the thread is about LON????? :rolleyes:

i would have thought that was fairly obvious????

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Errr. because the thread is about LON????? :rolleyes:

i would have thought that was fairly obvious????

But surely if people shouldn’t focus on local issues then either there’d be more threads about individual Uk feminists and not just LoN and una mullally. And you’d be contributing to those threads.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

But surely if people shouldn’t focus on local issues then either there’d be more threads about individual Uk feminists and not just LoN and una mullally. And you’d be contributing to those threads.

Oooooookaaaaaayyy........So there should be more threads discussing more feminist loons on boards?

Because we wouldnt want Louise feeling like she is the only idiot in the village? Yeah fair enough its a deal, the next feminist idiot I have the misfortune of becoming aware of, ill be sure to open a thread if it makes you feel better :rolleyes:

Look if its any consolation, they are all useless loons who should get a real job for themselves and cop themselves on but of course, the bullshít industry is alive and well so why would they when there is saps out there who buy this nonsense hook line and sinker.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oooooookaaaaaayyy........So there should be more threads discussing more feminist loons on boards?

Because we wouldnt want Louise feeling like she is the only idiot in the village? Yeah fair enough its a deal, the next feminist idiot I have the misfortune of becoming aware of, ill be sure to open a thread if it makes you feel better :rolleyes:

Look if its any consolation, they are all useless loons who should get a real job for themselves and cop themselves on but of course, the bullshít industry is alive and well so why would they when there is saps out there who buy this nonsense hook line and sinker.

Except you won’t open a thread on a UK feminist or a French feminist. Why? Because people are generally more interested in issues in their own country than other countries.

Now I personally wouldn’t assume that because you have much more vitriol for LoN than a similar foreign feminist that means you have no issue with the foreign feminist.

However that’s pretty much the nonsense standards that you and others apply to LON.