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

optogirl

optogirl wrote: »

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

Well, it really depends on what statistics or research you're basing all this on. Note: I am not saying that men are abused more than women. They're not. However, admissions from the police, and government services within the last decade show that the statistics that people have been using regarding Domestic abuse are inaccurate.

When it comes to Police responding to a domestic abuse/assault claim, in most cases, the male is assumed to be the aggressor even when:

a) the male is the one calling the police
b) there are witnesses (including children) to say that the woman was the aggressor
c) the only physical damage done has been to the male, and the female hasn't a scratch on her.

In each of these situations, the police policy was to bring in the male for questioning, and in the absence of proof (that was acceptable to them) the male would be charged. Hence, adding to the statistics.

Then, another angle is that society has a stigma against males who make claims about sexual abuse or physical abuse from a female. Police have admitted to dismissing claims of abuse, and not reporting/recording claims made in the past.

And then there's the research into relationships among teens, where it has been found that quite often violence is reciprocal, and there are higher percentages of females involved in non-reciprocal violence than previously believed. Stands to reason that the changes in our society regarding womens rights, would change the behavior of women in relationships, especially when they believe that the male would have a social crutch against defending himself. The idea that it's always wrong to hit a woman is still a very strong influence on the development males.

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

Sure, they are. Women have been in many government positions for decades, and women hold posts in the military. The US has tens of thousands of women serving in the armed forces, as analysts whose jobs decide where troops are sent to serve. Women have also been serving in the Intelligence communities for quite a long time.

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.

No. They were "recently" (well over a decade now) given the chance to serve in combat environments. Women have been serving in administrative, support or leadership roles for decades, and in some armed forces back to WW2.

DickSwiveller

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It seems every second poster thinks she has influence and she’s a muppet, or she has influence but she’s wrong. Or she’s got an unchallenged multimedia national platform but still has influence like a local drunk raving outside the library.

She definitely has influence. Not bad for such a big eejit,

I suppose it has completely slipped your notice that I haven’t said I agree with anything she says. I haven’t said I like her or I think she’s right. I have said repeatedly that she successfully gets her message out. And the feminists are getting her message out and causing changes in society culture and law. Good work, eh.

Saddam Hussein had influence and made changes in the law. What's your point exactly? That that's a virtue in itself?

optogirl

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)

And yet, most of the core changes in law regarding equality came in during the late 80s/early 90s. Sexual harassment laws for the workplace came in, and have completely merged with the social conscience in areas beyond the workplace.

You're living in the past. It's the most common excuse/reason by feminists about social injustice or sexism. They're concentrating so much on the problems of the past, they haven't realised that society is extremely favorable towards female rights.

No matter how intimidated or annoyed by feminism a lot of you are, you have no idea how oppressive misogyny is.

I'm getting the feeling that you're confused about the difference between misogyny and sexism. They're not the same thing, no matter how much feminists want to link them. There's not even any evidence that those who engaged in sexism are actually misogynists.

And as for not understanding misogyny... We've been bombarded with initiatives, campaigns, and the media in general, talking about womens rights, the troubles that women experience, etc. While I worked as a manager, I attended, at least, 8 conferences regarding sexual harassment/discrimination in the workplace. As a teacher abroad, I've also had to attend similar conferences.

The last 20 years+ have seen an explosion in describing womens issues to society. Now... If only women can understand what misogyny is like... I'd throw back Misandry at you and suggest that it happens more than you think...

It feels unfair that we have to refrain from doing certain things incase we are attacked,

As opposed to the complete freedom men have to choose their appearance, fashion, jobs, etc without fear of social pressure, or violence from others?

You're playing the victim too much. You can do whatever you want. You just have to face the consequences. We both walk home at night through a dodgy area... and we're both just as likely to get attacked, although I'd suggest getting a taxi instead.

You want complete freedom to do stupid things. Go ahead. But getting attacked for being stupid is not sexism... or misogyny. It's just because you're behaving like a muppet. It would be the same for most men not built like Arnie. And in all honesty... I've seen women walk away from trouble while the male is left behind to deal with it. No get out of jail clause for him.

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.

In all likelihood, women have been able to vote since before you were born. Same with most of what I left out above. You're still living in the past.

El_Duderino 09

DickSwiveller wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It seems every second poster thinks she has influence and she’s a muppet, or she has influence but she’s wrong. Or she’s got an unchallenged multimedia national platform but still has influence like a local drunk raving outside the library.

She definitely has influence. Not bad for such a big eejit,

I suppose it has completely slipped your notice that I haven’t said I agree with anything she says. I haven’t said I like her or I think she’s right. I have said repeatedly that she successfully gets her message out. And the feminists are getting her message out and causing changes in society culture and law. Good work, eh.

Saddam Hussein had influence and made changes in the law. What's your point exactly? That that's a virtue in itself?

Oh Chrisht alive. Saddam Hussein. Does that count as Godwinning? But to use your language then In so far as they're comparable. Yes.

you have to acknowledge the successful work of LON even if you don't agree with what she's saying. Men would be much more successful at getting their issues addressed if they had some LONs on their side.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Then, no need to discuss it further.

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.

I've never claimed that feminism hasn't been successful or that feminist movements haven't done a lot of campaigning. You keep wanting to argue to things I haven't even suggested slightly.

And then another poster will say they don’t understand the ‘battlefield’ analogy.

And here we go. Another poster. Not me. Care to find anywhere in this thread where I have argued about the Battlefield analogy?

Nope? Yup. More of the same. You really can't focus on the same discussion but just want to expand it to include other issues, or other peoples posts.

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

And completely meaningless. :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

And I have. I've stated multiple times that she has influence. Negative influence. You really do need to stop reinterpreting what I've written...

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

Content not numbers. You and LLMLL have the same issue it seems. LON spouts rubbish and bile. The drunk does the same. The only difference is that with feminism, LON has a support base who consider her to be correct.

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.

What success? What success has arisen from the implementation of gender quotas? More women in the workplace? err... obviously. Any other successes? A massive increase in efficiency or productivity? what?

As I said,.... the effects are still to be felt regarding quotas.

And I love how you've totally skipped over your statement that single people are losers and shouldn't really have much of a voice about consent. You do like to hop about to avoid the issues you make a flop on.

El_Duderino 09

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

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.

That would depend on why she withdrew consent. Did he go beyond what they had originally consented to? Did he understand the implication of her withdrawing consent?

The hurry will have been given a massively in-depth course on what consent is and isn't as part of he trial. It's entirely possible this guy didn't intend to tape anyone and would have benefited from an honest discussion about consent. We'll never know now. His life is changed forever.

gmisk

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That would depend on why she withdrew consent. Did he go beyond what they had originally consented to? Did he understand the implication of her withdrawing consent?

The hurry will have been given a massively in-depth course on what consent is and isn't as part of he trial. It's entirely possible this guy didn't intend to tape anyone and would have benefited from an honest discussion about consent. We'll never know now. His life is changed forever.

My heart bleeds for him! What about the woman he raped?!?

He had to cancel his wedding oh boo flipping hoo!

Outlaw Pete

Quotas do more harm than good and in fact it can be a good indication of mask slipping when a feminist who claims to be all about equality actually tries to create a situation where inequality will likely result, as was the case when good old Harriet Harmon was given the job as Minister for Equality in the UK not too long ago...........

https://www.hrzone.com/perform/people/harman-defends-positive-discrimination-plans

gmisk

gmisk wrote: »

My heart bleeds for him! What about the woman he raped?!?

With respect, there's a bit of difference between, say, a violent rape with no hint of consent at all, vs the article where she consented to sex but demanded to stop during because he wasn't wearing a condom... No mention of violence in the article. It's still rape, but emotionally world-shattering?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

[

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.

What success? What success has arisen from the implementation of gender quotas? More women in the workplace? err... obviously. Any other successes? A massive increase in efficiency or productivity? what?

As I said,.... the effects are still to be felt regarding quotas.

And I love how you've totally skipped over your statement that single people are losers and shouldn't really have much of a voice about consent. You do like to hop about to avoid the issues you make a flop on.

What success? They wanted gender quotas, they campaigned and lobbies for gender quotas and now we have gender quotas. That success. I didn't say anything success has arisen from the implementation of gender quotas, as you said, it's too early to tell what effects they'll have. I said getting gender quotas was a change which came about through their work.

I didn't say that single losers shouldn't have a much of a voice about consent. I did t even use the word losers, that's your word, not mine. Naturally they can have any opinion they want. Why are you bringing up the single posters again anyway? It's not relevant to the post above.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

gmisk wrote: »

My heart bleeds for him! What about the woman he raped?!?

With respect, there's a bit of difference between, say, a violent rape with no hint of consent at all, vs the article where she consented to sex but demanded to stop during because he wasn't wearing a condom... No mention of violence in the article. It's still rape, but emotionally world-shattering?

Sounds like exactly the reason for having honest and open discussions about consent so these kinds of things don't happen by accident or through ignorance. It's an important issue for men and women

DickSwiveller

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh Chrisht alive. Saddam Hussein. Does that count as Godwinning? But to use your language then In so far as they're comparable. Yes.

you have to acknowledge the successful work of LON even if you don't agree with what she's saying. Men would be much more successful at getting their issues addressed if they had some LONs on their side.

What successful work?

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

So your point on asking about current legal inequalities is not to suggest that legal inequalities are all that should matter to feminists?

If not that then what is your point?

Ask me 4 more times and then I’ll attempt to answer you. It’s only fair as that’s what you did when I asked you a question. #Equality

gmisk

Deleted User wrote: »

With respect, there's a bit of difference between, say, a violent rape with no hint of consent at all, vs the article where she consented to sex but demanded to stop during because he wasn't wearing a condom... No mention of violence in the article. It's still rape, but emotionally world-shattering?

The woman was still raped, i would think it would have a very profound effect.

Omackeral

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Can you give me some current examples of how women in Ireland are discriminated against in the same way that black people in the US are discriminated against.

“We’re sorry, the amount of times you’ve asked this question is insufficient. Please try again later.”

gmisk

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sounds like exactly the reason for having honest and open discussions about consent so these kinds of things don't happen by accident or through ignorance. It's an important issue for men and women

If someone says no...stop
If someone isnt in a state to consent...stop
Its not rocket science in fairness...


Are you trying to imply that guy raped that woman due to an accident or ignorance?

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

“We’re sorry, the amount of times you’ve asked this question is insufficient. Please try again later.”

Except I did answer it. I said I do not think that Irish women face similar discrimination toblack people in the US.

Not really the smartest idea to try and use a question I’ve answered as evidence that I avoid questions......

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What success? They wanted gender quotas, they campaigned and lobbies for gender quotas and now we have gender quotas. That success. I didn't say anything success has arisen from the implementation of gender quotas, as you said, it's too early to tell what effects they'll have. I said getting gender quotas was a change which came about through their work.

Yup. Feminism has been massively successful in getting various laws, or changes implemented.

At this stage I have no idea what you're arguing about.

I didn't say that single losers shouldn't have a much of a voice about consent. I did t even use the word losers, that's your word, not mine. Naturally they can have any opinion they want. Why are you bringing up the single posters again anyway? It's not relevant to the post above.

Because it was the original discussion about consent. We're finished with the discussion on consent then? ok.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Ask me 4 more times and then I’ll attempt to answer you. It’s only fair as that’s what you did when I asked you a question. #Equality

Hey I’m fine With the hypocrisy of you demanding answers to pointless questions while refusing to answer any yourself.

keano_afc

Deleted User wrote: »

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

This is on the money. Gloriously on the money.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sounds like exactly the reason for having honest and open discussions about consent so these kinds of things don't happen by accident or through ignorance. It's an important issue for men and women

The guy was a tool. That's it. A woman asks you to stop having sex with her.. what do you do? Pull it out, get dressed, and have a little chat. She doesn't want anything more, go home. Simple.

A woman says no sex without a condom, but concedes to having sex. err...danger signs. Pull out, go down to the 24 hr shop, get condoms. Simple.

It's not rocket science, and most guys would know that. Frankly, the article suggests that the woman was a bit of an idiot too. She says no to sex without a condom, starts having penetrative sex with him, but then she has second thoughts later during sex.

TBH I suspect we need common sense classes rather than consent classes. This is too much like optogirl's attitude that its unfair that she can't do anything she wants... (without having to deal with the nasty consequences.)

El_Duderino 09

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What successful work?

Deleted User wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

What success? They wanted gender quotas, they campaigned and lobbies for gender quotas and now we have gender quotas. That success. I didn't say anything success has arisen from the implementation of gender quotas, as you said, it's too early to tell what effects they'll have. I said getting gender quotas was a change which came about through their work.

Yup. Feminism has been massively successful in getting various laws, or changes implemented.

Klaz gets it. Ask them.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

So you want examples of oppression/discrimination but don’t want to hear about the main ones? Riiiiiight.

I said that rape and sexual assault were already being discussed here. I'm pretty sure I've taken part in the discussion. I'm simply asking if you had some current examples of oppression and discrimination against women in Ireland that don't involve sexual violence. Its ok to admit you don't.

El_Duderino 09

gmisk wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sounds like exactly the reason for having honest and open discussions about consent so these kinds of things don't happen by accident or through ignorance. It's an important issue for men and women

If someone says no...stop
If someone isnt in a state to consent...stop
Its not rocket science in fairness...


Are you trying to imply that guy raped that woman due to an accident or ignorance?

I'm not implying that anything did or didn't happen because I don't know the details. I'm saying straight out that if the guy was ignorant of the nuances of consent, then it's perfectly possible that he committed a rape without intending to.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Klaz gets it. Ask them.

Massively successful at getting their changes, initiatives or laws introduced....

I'm very much on the fence as to whether many of those changes have genuinely improved the lives of women long-term, or haven't damaged society overall. There is far too much focus on change without considering the long-term effects of those changes on the whole.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I said that rape and sexual assault were already being discussed here. I'm pretty sure I've taken part in the discussion. I'm simply asking if you had some current examples of oppression and discrimination against women in Ireland that don't involve sexual violence. Its ok to admit you don't.

Yes women do face discrimination and oppression in regards to sexual violence. Thanks for acknowledging that.

I would go further and say women face discrimination around all aspects of sex, not just violence.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sounds like exactly the reason for having honest and open discussions about consent so these kinds of things don't happen by accident or through ignorance. It's an important issue for men and women

The guy was a tool. That's it. A woman asks you to stop having sex with her.. what do you do? Pull it out, get dressed, and have a little chat. She doesn't want anything more, go home. Simple.

A woman says no sex without a condom, but concedes to having sex. err...danger signs. Pull out, go down to the 24 hr shop, get condoms. Simple.

It's not rocket science, and most guys would know that. Frankly, the article suggests that the woman was a bit of an idiot too. She says no to sex without a condom, starts having penetrative sex with him, but then she has second thoughts later during sex.

He was a tool but did he intend to rape anyone is probably the more important question.

Are we agreed that this was a type of rape?

As an example of the effect of actually discussing the topic, I'd love to find the thread from a few weeks ago about this case. There was loads of discussion about whether or not this actually was a rape or not. Now the issue seems to have been settled and I wonder if people's attitudes have changed. I suspect they have.

Does anyone remember which thread had the original discussion about this case was a few weeks ago?

Omackeral

Do you know what I noticed. There’s a decent female contingent on RTE’s coverage of the FIFA World Cup. Jacqui Hurley is presenting while the likes of Stephanie Roche and US Goalkeeper Hope Solo are panelists. There was another girl on yesterday but I didn’t catch her name.

Thought Hope Solo was an interesting choice given she was domestic battery charges against her. Wonder would that be commented on if that were a man charged with the same?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

He was a tool but did he intend to rape anyone is probably the more important question.

Probably not... but the world is filled with the foolish, the oblvious and those who simply don't care. This is a good way to trim the bushes and weed out the muppets.

Are we agreed that this was a type of rape?

I've said in, at least, three previous posts, that it was rape.

Omackeral

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm simply asking if you had some current examples of oppression and discrimination against women in Ireland that don't involve sexual violence. Its ok to admit you don't.

I mean, I can see you’re simply asking a direct question. I’m sure 99% of the other posters here can see that too. Somehow the person you’re directing it at can’t or won’t. I see they’ve skipped and tip-toed around it above. It’s really just makes for poor discussion, defeating the basic premise of a thread/forum.