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

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Because when words fail me...there is only Ryan Reynolds to express the bare stupidity im witnessing

RabbleRouser2k

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.

I think everyone would like to write a book, but then you come up against the hassle of being accused of being racist, sexist or part of the third reich. Which either kills your book, or, like Milo Yiannopoulos, makes your book go to the top of the NYT bestseller list.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

I know quite well what it means. Just pointing out the misnomer that is the term feminism these days by explaining I’ve nothing against women being on an even playing field with men. You failed to dispute any of that though because you can’t.

You’ve dodged this question at least three times now. Can you answer it definitively? What legal boundaries do women face that men don’t now?

Omackeral

DickSwiveller wrote: »

You have an answer for everything.

Except for this question... that’s been asked loads of times directly;

What laws are in place in 2018 that hold women back in Ireland?

DavidLyons_

Omackeral wrote: »

Except for this question... that’s been asked loads of times directly;

What laws are in place in 2018 that hold women back in Ireland?

I too would be fascinated to see this answered.

optogirl

Omackeral wrote: »

Except for this question... that’s been asked loads of times directly;

What laws are in place in 2018 that hold women back in Ireland?

surely you understand that laws changing doesn't mean that everyone is immediately equal? Formal legal equality does not equal actual social equality. (apologies for the overuse of equal in that sentence - it's making my brain sore too)

No matter how intimidated or annoyed by feminism a lot of you are, you have no idea how oppressive misogyny is. It feels unfair that we have to refrain from doing certain things incase we are attacked, it feels unfair that pretty much every single decision regarding the direction the world took was made by men, it feels unfair that we have little to no recorded history pre-1900, why we have little to no role models who led or even participated in government or social leadership until very recently. It feels unfair that women have until recently been excluded from politics, education, policy making. It feels unfair that women are over twice as likely as men to have experienced severe physical abuse, seven times more likely to have experienced sexual abuse, and are more likely to experience serious injuries than men. It feels unfair that a natural biological thing like menstruation, happening to 51% of the population every month is still regarded as disgusting and something to shut up about. Surely you cannot deny historical, endemic discrimination against women – economic/medical/educational/sexual etc etc. It takes time to change this. Women are behind - it takes time for equality to happen - it is not just about both being able to vote.

I have no doubt that many of you are reading this thinking 'poor you, it feels unfair' but hey ho.

sydthebeat

The above post is laughable.....

optogirl

sydthebeat wrote: »

The above post is laughable.....

Delighted to have brightened your morning. Your response is comprehensive and insightful so THANK YOU!

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

It’s amusing that I’m wrong for saying LON and her peers have influence, but then people also acknowledge the success of LON and her peers in campaigning for change. The current sex ed revamp is a prime example of their success.

Of course, they have influence. You're chasing the obvious point. Our local drunk who shouts at the corner of Library square on all of his life issues has influence. Some people do stop, listen, and agree with him. Most don't. Thankfully.

Love how you're attributing the sex ed revamp to LON. Just because she's a feminist, she shares all the victories of the overall movement... but when it comes to the more toxic side of things, we're told that feminism is a varied movement with different parts. Funny. :rolleyes:

I was quite explicit about saying ‘LON and her peers’. I don’t think she is personally responsible for anything but she’s a national voice contributing to the discussion. The local drunk analogy is sloppy and lazy. Does your local drink have a national and international multimedia platform? Is your local drunk campaigning on issues which are actually changing? Does your local drunk have a 300 page thread on boards dedicated to them? Probably not.

It’s amusing that you say say the government tends to bow ‘to the feminists mandate’. But you do so without acknowledging the hard work and resulting success the feminists have had from their campaigning issues. If you’re right and the government just does whatever the feminists mandate, then that’s because of the relentless campaigning and lobbying they do.

And then another poster will say they don’t understand the ‘battlefield’ analogy. To be clear the battlefield I’m referring to is the specific issues they choose to pursue. For example the inclusion of consent in the sex education revamp. They fight their battle by lobbying government, giving evidence in parliamentary committees, discussing their concerns in National media. The anti feminists air their concerns with the feminists objectives.

Meanwhile The feminists are meeting their objectives which is acknowledged in some posts but denied in other posts. Most amusing.

El_Duderino 09

LLMMLL wrote: »

The guys on this thread don’t care about changing laws around rape or any other men’s issue. All they want to do is nitpick LON.

I agree. It’s similar over the gentlemen’s forum. Threads upon threads which are nominally or notionally about men's rights but they’re actually just bitching about feminists objectives. They’ll complain about the things happening in the name of feminism but never credit feminists fir the hard work and relentless campaigning that caused the change.

Some of them think government just makes changes willy nilly. They almost never recognise the work that underpins a change at government level.

As someone who cares about men’s rights more than I care about feminism, I find myself in the minority when I support the kind of campaigning that actually achieves change.

I don’t have to agree with anything LON and her peers say to acknowledge that they’re part of a successful movement. They get things done. That’s why it bugs me that there is a 300 page thread about LON but it’s hard to get more than a ‘meh’ for international men’s day over on the gentlemen’s forum.

sydthebeat

optogirl wrote: »

Delighted to have brightened your morning. Your response is comprehensive and insightful so THANK YOU!

Well if you even considered the plight of single fathers in this country and LEGALLY how disgusting the inequality is then you'd reconsider the supposed social hardship some women have.

Put on top of that the 500% more risk of male suicide than female..... Mainly caused by our laughable mental health services that unequally effect males a lot more than women.... Then again you'd see the poor mouth inherent in your post.

But you didn't consider that did you.....

Omackeral

sydthebeat wrote: »

The above post is laughable.....

Laughable might be a little harsh but it’s certainly hyperbolic. We had a woman president in 1990, that’s nearly 30 years ago. Politics is a stick people use to claim patriarchy and misogyny but women vote here too and have done for a century. Women must not be voting for other women if there aren’t enough elected. Your vote is equal to any man’s, register doesn’t differentiate.

givyjoe

optogirl wrote: »

surely you understand that laws changing doesn't mean that everyone is immediately equal? Formal legal equality does not equal actual social equality. (apologies for the overuse of equal in that sentence - it's making my brain sore too)

No matter how intimidated or annoyed by feminism a lot of you are, you have no idea how oppressive misogyny is. It feels unfair that we have to refrain from doing certain things incase we are attacked, it feels unfair that pretty much every single decision regarding the direction the world took was made by men, it feels unfair that we have little to no recorded history pre-1900, why we have little to no role models who led or even participated in government or social leadership until very recently. It feels unfair that women have until recently been excluded from politics, education, policy making. It feels unfair that women are over twice as likely as men to have experienced severe physical abuse, seven times more likely to have experienced sexual abuse, and are more likely to experience serious injuries than men. It feels unfair that a natural biological thing like menstruation, happening to 51% of the population every month is still regarded as disgusting and something to shut up about. Surely you cannot deny historical, endemic discrimination against women – economic/medical/educational/sexual etc etc. It takes time to change this. Women are behind - it takes time for equality to happen - it is not just about both being able to vote.

I have no doubt that many of you are reading this thinking 'poor you, it feels unfair' but hey ho.

The question was 'What laws are in place in 2018 that hold women back in Ireland?' The above doesn't offer any answers.

optogirl

sydthebeat wrote: »

Well if you even considered the plight of single fathers in this country and LEGALLY how disgusting the inequality is then you'd reconsider the supposed social hardship some women have.

Put on top of that the 500% more risk of male suicide than female..... Mainly caused by our laughable mental health services that unequally effect males a lot more than women.... Then again you'd see the poor mouth inherent in your post.

But you didn't consider that did you.....

I actually spend a good deal of my spare time supporting organisations who help men open up about suicidal ideation and mental health problems. This however has nothing to do with the thread and men being more likely to commit suicide has nothing to do with feminism. I think if you take a look at which sex are doing more in the area of mental health for men & women you'll find it is overwhelmingly women. Overwhelmingly women nursing, overwhelmingly women at the end of the helplines, overwhelmingly women doing the soup runs. Our mental health services do not unequally effect males. They are shi*e for everyone.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This bugs me. You’re able to acknowledge that the feminists are pushing the issues and pushing governments to implement their lobbying objectives. But when I say they’re winning posters can’t seem to figure out what I’m talking about.

Because there's a difference. You attribute the forward movement to people like LON, who is a feminist. The change in Government and public perception is being driven by the feminist movement overall, and also normal social change. Now, LON just happens to be a feminist that makes sweeping statements about men in a very negative manner. Which is why I wouldn't be so quick paint her as a positive influence on the situation.

You previously said LON was winning attention, and now you're saying Feminism is winning attention for the issues. To me, they are different forces.

I don’t have to like gender quotas to credit them with successfully lobbying to get their objectives implemented.

Have they? The quotas are still relatively new to the various systems, and we've yet to see the effects. We could just as easily see a diminished form of womens status in workplaces due to negative reactions and the demand for numbers rather than genuine skill/knowledge.

Either way, IMO the quotas are sexist, and a genuine movement away from actual equality.

This is exactly what I said you don’t have to like gender quotas to acknowledge that the feminists got them implemented. Even if they turn out to be a terrible idea, the feminists fought hard for them and successfully lobbied to have them implemented.

You don’t have to think LON is a good person or that she has a good point about anything to acknowledge her as a national voice.

If I say she had influence you’ll conpare her to your local raving drunk outside the library. Yet she spawned over 5000 posts.

There’s no end of complaints about gender quotas and when I point out that the feminists successfully got them implemented, you downplay their significance to avoid crediting feminists with their success.

o1s1n

optogirl wrote: »

...and are more likely to experience serious injuries than men.

There was a lot wrong and incorrect with your post, but this was the most glaringly obvious.

Can you please explain how women are more likely to experience serious injuries than men, when historically men have always been the ones that;

Were sent to die in wars, protected societies re police forces/militias, worked down mines, operating dangerous machinery on building sites, let 'women and children' go first in times of emergency..?

optogirl

o1s1n wrote: »

There was a lot wrong and incorrect with your post, but this was the most glaringly obvious.

Can you please explain how women are more likely to experience serious injuries than men, when historically men have always been the ones that;

Were sent to die in wars, protected societies re police forces/militias, worked down mines, operating dangerous machinery on building sites, let 'women and children' go first in times of emergency..?

I apologise that should have been made clearer - that's in relation to domestic violence.


Who is sending men to die in wars? Not women.

The women first in emergencies is weird and I agree should have gone out with the ark.

There are plenty of women in police forces & armies? Seeing as they were only given that option relatively recently it's hardly surprising that there are less of them.

sydthebeat

optogirl wrote: »

There are plenty of women in police forces & armies? Seeing as they were only given that option relatively recently it's hardly surprising that there are less of them.

Women have been allowed to join the Irish police force for 60 years, and 40 years in the case of the army...

But sure don't let facts get in the way of some good anti-men hyperbole

Ri_Nollaig

optogirl wrote: »

I apologise that should have been made clearer - that's in relation to domestic violence.


Who is sending men to die in wars? Not women.

The women first in emergencies is weird and I agree should have gone out with the ark.

There are plenty of women in police forces & armies? Seeing as they were only given that option relatively recently it's hardly surprising that there are less of them.

As you are going to go down this road. Historically there are plenty of examples of female leaders who were more than happy to send the men off to die for some reason or another. Can't deny there was obviously more male leaders than female throughout history but when there was a female leader they didn't exactly behave any different or more 'enlighten'.
Conclusion?
Its human behaviour and not some kinda "the world would have been better had women been in charge".

Was there past inequalities? Absolutely!
Are there any there today? If so, please point out and I will guarantee it will not be there for long!

Wibbs

optogirl wrote: »

Who is sending men to die in wars? Not women.

Oddly enough the suffragettes, those proto feminists* also did a sideline in shaming men in the First World War who didn't go off to fight. Handed out white feathers for cowardice and argued for a forced draft of all fighting age men. That doesn't tend to make the hagiographies of today of course.





*who I have generally more time for than their great grandchildren's version. For a start they actually argued for full parity with men, even when it didn't suit. Except in the getting riddled by German bullets in the trenches bit.

py2006

DickSwiveller wrote: »

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

Jesus, I thought that crap was only in US Gender studies courses. Please tell me that it hasn't creeped in here too.

Ash.J.Williams

Looks like her new musical is going to be a huge success. Fair play.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

Jesus, I thought that crap was only in US Gender studies courses. Please tell me that it hasn't creeped in here too.

I dont know anything about specific specific consent classes. But info know they're revamping the sex and relationships class for schools. It will be updated to include consent among other things.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

I know quite well what it means. Just pointing out the misnomer that is the term feminism these days by explaining I’ve nothing against women being on an even playing field with men. You failed to dispute any of that though because you can’t.

You’ve dodged this question at least three times now. Can you answer it definitively? What legal boundaries do women face that men don’t now?

I haven’t dodged it. It’s an irrelevant question. Feminism is not solely concerned with the law. Just as gay rights campaigners didn’t disappear when gay marriage was introduced and still deal with things such as bullying in schools. I thought it was pretty obvious but clearly not.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

I haven’t dodged it. It’s an irrelevant question. Feminism is not solely concerned with the law. Just as gay rights campaigners didn’t disappear when gay marriage was introduced and still deal with things such as bullying in schools. I thought it was pretty obvious but clearly not.

You’ve dodged it and continued to do so, that’s what’s obvious. It’s only ‘irrelevant’ because the answer doesn’t suit your narrative. It took you 5 times of being asked to hash out a half baked half response. Are there arseholes around with misogynistic views? Yes. Are there arseholes around with misandrist views? Yes. Are there any legal boundaries stopping women rising to the top of their fields just as their male counterparts do? No. They have done. They continue to do so.

The answer to the posed question was simply ‘no’. It’s all you had to say but you hadn’t the cojones to just woman up and do it. You and your ilk are the ones with venomous views, little or no compromising and more concerned with perceived slights rather than actual ones. It’s pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

optogirl

Omackeral wrote: »

The answer to the posed question was simply ‘no’. It’s all you had to say but you hadn’t the cojones to just woman up and do it. You and your ilk are the ones with venomous views, little or no compromising and more concerned with perceived slights rather than actual ones. It’s pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

JohnMc1

py2006 wrote: »

Jesus, I thought that crap was only in US Gender studies courses. Please tell me that it hasn't creeped in here too.

Feminism, Gay rights and Global warming and other Leftist agendas have practically morphed into religions the way some of them carry on.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

You’ve dodged it and continued to do so, that’s what’s obvious. It’s only ‘irrelevant’ because the answer doesn’t suit your narrative. It took you 5 times of being asked to hash out a half baked half response. Are there arseholes around with misogynistic views? Yes. Are there arseholes around with misandrist views? Yes. Are there any legal boundaries stopping women rising to the top of their fields just as their male counterparts do? No. They have done. They continue to do so.

The answer to the posed question was simply ‘no’. It’s all you had to say but you hadn’t the cojones to just woman up and do it. You and your ilk are the ones with venomous views, little or no compromising and more concerned with perceived slights rather than actual ones. It’s pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

Do you think that your shouty, angry writing style intimidates anyone or supports your point at all? Just curious.

Anyway, it’s an irrelevant question because it assumes that feminism is concerned with legal inequalities when clearly it’s just as concerned with social matters that affect women disproportionately. That’s a fact not a narrative.

py2006

Sigh!

Getting back to LON...


I wonder is it a coincidence that her little play is on at the EVERYMAN theatre in Cork?

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you think that your shouty, angry writing style intimidates anyone or supports your point at all? Just curious.

Anyway, it’s an irrelevant question because it assumes that feminism is concerned with legal inequalities when clearly it’s just as concerned with social matters that affect women disproportionately. That’s a fact not a narrative.

You couldn’t or wouldn’t answer a simple question. I asked you a question. You wouldn’t answer it. You refuse to engage in a discussion when it’s directed towards you and you don’t like how it’s going. It’s hard to have a back and forth in that case.

Feminism in its true form strives for equality. Feminism that the likes of O Neill, yourself and other headcases espouse, seeks to malign an imagined patriarchy and search for victimhood. Not much else. Anyone who identifies first and foremost as a feminist with an online profile is, more often than not, an absolute fcuknugget.