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

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Klaz gets it. Ask them.

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

Yep. That's exactly what I've said all along.

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I haven't brought that up at all. I've been pretty precise in saying that they have been successful at achieving legislative change. I haven't once said the changes are good or bad for society overall.

Ulysses Gaze

Omackeral wrote: »

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?

Louise Quinn, I believe.

gmisk

Omackeral wrote: »

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?

Those charges were fully dropped.


Some of the female commentators on football are terrific I especially like Jacqui Oatley and Priya Ramesh in the guardian


If you are looking for sexist/patronising behavior recently with regards football commentary you dont have to look too far.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jun/17/pundit-challenged-over-clapping-female-hosts-world-cup-analysis

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

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.

That’s a little hypocritical no?

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yep. That's exactly what I've said all along.

I haven't brought that up at all. I've been pretty precise in saying that they have been successful at achieving legislative change. I haven't once said the changes are good or bad for society overall.

Ahh... shucks. And here I thought, I had independence of thought and action from you, and could write whatever I damn well wanted. FFS.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s a little hypocritical no?

Not at all. I engage and I answer questions put to me. You’ve deflected questions from me

py2006

Anecdotely speaking, when it comes to the job market if I were a woman I'd be applying for all top jobs and promotions.

I can't back this up but from conversations companies are scared shirtless of feminist accusations if they don't have a significant percentage of female staff. Specifically in management upwards.

Even simply hiring a man over a woman is a risk these days.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Not at all. I engage and I answer questions put to me. You’ve deflected questions from me

I’ll ask Again so:

Do you believe legal equality means full equality?

Once a group reaches legal equality does that mean there is nothing left to campaign on?

Dying to see you engage directly on those questions.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

Care to elaborate?

What about some examples that aren't sexual?

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s a little hypocritical no?

LLMMLL wrote: »

That’s a little hypocritical no?

Not at all. I engage and I answer questions put to me. A quick look back will show that. Meanwhile you’ve either ignored or deflected questions from myself, Yeah_Right and others on here. I don’t think there’s much more merit in continuing this discussion with you, because it doesn’t work when only one side has an honest input.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Ha! A fool committing a rape is a good way to 'trim the bushes' compared to simply haveing open and honest discussions about the nuances of consent.

You could catch the fool by making sure they're educated and less foolish after the discussion. It shows pretty astounding disregard for men and women to say that "This is a good way to trim the bushes and weed out the muppets".

That's actually one of the most incredible things even ever seen posted on boards. Tell me you didn't mean it. It was a typo, right? You don't actually think a guy committing rape and being found guilty and a woman being raped is "a good way to trim the bushes and weed out the muppets." Say it ain't so.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Care to elaborate?

What about some examples that aren't sexual?

Sure. The double standards around men and women who sleep around would be one example.

Non sexual I would say attitudes to women’s capability in the sciences and gender stereotypes for children (though I believe that’s a negative for men as well as women).

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’ll ask Again so:

Do you believe legal equality means full equality?

Once a group reaches legal equality does that mean there is nothing left to campaign on?

Dying to see you engage directly on those questions.

I don’t really get you. What could you possibly be campaigning for if everybody is on an equal legal footing?! Quotas?

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yep. That's exactly what I've said all along.

I haven't brought that up at all. I've been pretty precise in saying that they have been successful at achieving legislative change. I haven't once said the changes are good or bad for society overall.

Ahh... shucks. And here I thought, I had independence of thought and action from you, and could write whatever I damn well wanted. FFS.

You have complete independence. And you agreed with me. Poor Aul Dickswivel doesn't know about the success were referring to. He'll be along to ask you what we mean, presently. Or not

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Not at all. I engage and I answer questions put to me. A quick look back will show that. Meanwhile you’ve either ignored or deflected questions from myself, Yeah_Right and others on here. I don’t think there’s much more merit in continuing this discussion with you, because it doesn’t work when only one side has an honest input.

What a wonderful example of engagement with my questions. I must remember that “I don’t think there’s much merit in continuing this discussion” counts as engagement with direct questioning.

Lol.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Non sexual I would say attitudes to women’s capability in the sciences and gender stereotypes for children (though I believe that’s a negative for men as well as women).

That’s the barrell being scraped there. Youve even included men sure. Brilliant.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

I don’t really get you. What could you possibly be campaigning for if everybody is on an equal legal footing?! Quotas?

That’s not a direct answer to my question.

Can I assume you mean that no there is nothing left for a group to campaign for if legal equality has been reached?

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

What a wonderful example of engagement with my questions. I must remember that “I don’t think there’s much merit in continuing this discussion” counts as engagement with direct questioning.

Lol.

I answered your question.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

I answered your question.

No you didn’t. You responded with a question. How is that a direct answer......geez

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

No you didn’t. You responded with a question. How is that a direct answer......geez

It's really annoying isn't it?

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

It's really annoying isn't it?

I’d say more hypocritical than annoying.

Omackeral

Do you know what’s sh*t. I feel self conscious as fcuk cleaning my car in my garden when the kids on my road come over and ask to help and chat. Not because I don’t know what to say to them, it’s because some people think a man being in his garden with kids is creepy. If my missus did the same, it’s not an issue.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can I assume you mean that no there is nothing left for a group to campaign for if legal equality has been reached?

What’s to campaign for? If legally everything is there already? It’s a simple concept! What more can you give? I don’t reallt get what you’re on about

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

No you didn’t. You responded with a question. How is that a direct answer......geez

Because your question doesn’t really make sense. Seriously. What can a group campaign for if they’ve already got equality across the board. It doesn’t make sense. Anyway, back to work I go.

py2006

It always makes me laugh when feminists make the claim that women face more sexism and more sexual harassment in the work place then men. The worst of them will claim men dont experience any.

In EVERY job I've been in (there is more than most) I've experienced and witnessed sexism and sexually inappropriate comments and acts towards men.

Even this week in my current job a female colleague has made comments about my penis in front of other female staff etc. Now it's all banter and a laugh and men don't get offended or care about these things but if I said a similar comment to a female colleague I would be in a very serious warning at best or loose my job.

Women get away with it, that's the difference.

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

Because your question doesn’t really make sense. Seriously. What can a group campaign for if they’ve already got equality across the board. It doesn’t make sense. Anyway, back to work I go.

All you’re doing is responding with questions. Not sure you understand what a direct answer is.

If you consider that there’s nothing left to campaign for then a direct answer would be “no I don’t believe there’s anything left for a group to campaign for once legal equality has been reached”

Yet you seem unwilling to to give that direct answer. Why is that?

Can I assume that it is your answer so I can proceed with my argument?

gmisk

py2006 wrote: »

It always makes me laugh when feminists make the claim that women face more sexism and more sexual harassment in the work place then men. The worst of them will claim men dont experience any.

In EVERY job I've been in (there is more than most) I've experienced and witnessed sexism and sexually inappropriate comments and acts towards men.

Even this week in my current job a female colleague has made comments about my penis in front of other female staff etc. Now it's all banter and a laugh and men don't get offended or care about these things but if I said a similar comment to a female colleague I would be in a very serious warning at best or loose my job.

Women get away with it, that's the difference.

Its ridiculous for anyone to say men dont experience sexism.
It doesnt lessen then fact that woman do too (it isnt a competition!).
I think in general in most work places there is less getting away with it now, thankfully.


I am a gay man btw, so maybe try enjoying some of the working environments I have had with the joys of sexism and homophobia combined.

Outlaw Pete

optogirl wrote: »

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 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

'Feels' being the operative word.

You cherry hopped your way through history there with a complete disregard for how much nature, and class, played it's part in much of your gripes and also how much men physically scarifced themselves for women, and their children. You'd swear men throughout time all had their feet up and gave no regard at all for the female of the species. Working the fields and down mines fall under patriarchal opression does it?

You say women are twice as likely to experience severe physical abuse but yet ignore that 78% of homicide victims are male. You complain about having to alter behaviour for fear of attacks but you hardly have the monopoly on that. Men walking alone, particularly young or elderly males, will often alter their route if they anticipate danger.

As for no women in power: there was Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, Cathrine the Great, there were queens of the Palmyrene Empire, Empresses in Eqypt and China. There was Queen Victoria and Elizabeth closer to home.

You have quite the jaundiced view of how society has functioned throughout history and also with just what it has taken to get humanity where it is, and indeed, keep it where it is, on an hourly basis. If there was an irreversibly energy crisis tomorrow we would, in many functional ways, be back to the dark ages within a few years, maybe sooner, and you can bet your ass traditional gender roles would soon begin to be adopted once again, not bourne from oppression, but from sheer necessity.

Your attitude is not uncommon though, and Camile Paglia wrote the following in response to it (from others) a few years back:

The modern economy is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author.

If men are obsolete, then women will soon be extinct—unless we rush down that ominous Brave New World path where females will clone themselves by parthenogenesis, as famously do Komodo dragons, hammerhead sharks, and pit vipers.

A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism. Men’s faults, failings and foibles have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment. Ideologue professors at our leading universities indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates with carelessly fact-free theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology.

Is it any wonder that so many high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success, find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life? When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood, then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments. And without strong men as models to either embrace or (for dissident lesbians) to resist, women will never attain a centered and profound sense of themselves as women.

From my long observation, which predates the sexual revolution, this remains a serious problem afflicting Anglo-American society, with its Puritan residue. In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America, and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women seem to have found a formula for asserting power and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamor. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences. In today’s punitive atmosphere of sentimental propaganda about gender, the sexual imagination has understandably fled into the alternate world of online pornography, where the rude but exhilarating forces of primitive nature rollick unconstrained by religious or feminist moralism.

It was always the proper mission of feminism to attack and reconstruct the ossified social practices that had led to wide-ranging discrimination against women. But surely it was and is possible for a progressive reform movement to achieve that without stereotyping, belittling, or demonizing men. History must be seen clearly and fairly: obstructive traditions arose not from men’s hatred or enslavement of women but from the natural division of labor that had developed over thousands of years during the agrarian period and that once immensely benefited and protected women, permitting them to remain at the hearth to care for helpless infants and children. Over the past century, it was labor-saving appliances, invented by men and spread by capitalism, that liberated women from daily drudgery.

What is troubling in too many books and articles by feminist journalists in the U.S. is, despite their putative leftism, an implicit privileging of bourgeois values and culture. The particular focused, clerical and managerial skills of the upper-middle-class elite are presented as the highest desideratum, the ultimate evolutionary point of humanity. Yes, there has been a gradual transition from an industrial to a service-sector economy in which women, who generally prefer a safe, clean, quiet work environment thrive.

But the triumphalism among some, such as Hanna Rosin in her book, “The End of Men,” about women’s gains seems startlingly premature, such as when Rosin says of the sagging fortunes of today’s working-class couples that they and we had “reached the end of a hundred thousand years of human history and the beginning of a new era, and there was no going back.” This sweeping appeal to history somehow overlooks history’s far darker lessons about the cyclic rise and fall of civilizations, which as they become more complex and interconnected also become more vulnerable to collapse. The earth is littered with the ruins of empires that believed they were eternal.

After the next inevitable apocalypse, men will be desperately needed again! Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock, but most women and children will be expecting men to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf. Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists, who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible. It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments. It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall.

Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world. These stately colossi are loaded, steered, and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!

You also quipped:

..it is not just about both being able to vote.

Well, I would say that not only is it not just about women being able to vote, but that it shouldnt even be about it, or at least not to the degree we hear it, as again, women do not have the monopoly there either, as men were also denied the right to vote. We hear about female suffrage all the time but almost never about male suffrage, but we should, as it is just as much part of our history.

Yes, 8.4 million women were granted the right to vote in 1918, but so were 5.6 million men and if we go back to before the 1867 Reform Act, only 15% of men had the right to vote, as men had to own a certain amount of land and property to vote. 40% of men still didn't have the right to vote in 1918. Yet hundreds of thousands of those same young men fought and died for that country that didn't even grant them the right to vote as they weren't wealthy enough. So the ruling class were not just a bunch of patriarchal misogynistic oppressors trying to keep women down (as is the popular narrative of today) they were in fact elitists, many of which were female, and some of whom argued that rich women should have the right to vote over poor men.

Not exactly something they teach in Women's Studies I bet. Much too busy brainwashing young females about how they've been oppressed throughout history and how men like Hans Christain Anderson have done them a disservice in his fairytales.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

It always makes me laugh when feminists make the claim that women face more sexism and more sexual harassment in the work place then men. The worst of them will claim men dont experience any.

In EVERY job I've been in (there is more than most) I've experienced and witnessed sexism and sexually inappropriate comments and acts towards men.

Even this week in my current job a female colleague has made comments about my penis in front of other female staff etc. Now it's all banter and a laugh and men don't get offended or care about these things but if I said a similar comment to a female colleague I would be in a very serious warning at best or loose my job.

Women get away with it, that's the difference.

I've said before that the silly Left need to be careful with their that's-offensive-make-these-words-illegal stuff because windows of acceptability change. A hilarious example being a Price event in Scotland banning Drag Acts. If everyone is encouraged to "speak up" about every little thing then women will see more of how much tip-toeing men generally have to do in so many situations.

py2006

py2006 wrote: »

Sigh!

Getting back to LON...


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

It's absolutely disgraceful. No consideration for women, hermaphrodites or those who identify as a hedgehog twice a week