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

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

And I’ve given you examples. And will continue to use sexual violence as one of the main ones. So there’s no struggle for me to come up with issues that women face.

What constitutes natural change? Can you isolate exactly why attitudes towards women’s sexuality have changed in say the last 30 years? Magic? Natural change would just as likely to be conservative as liberal. Claiming there’s just a natural change in social attitudes is a major cop out.

I used to think the same around attitudes towards children until I witnessed children being raised. From the very second they had hair enough to grow out and be identified as a boy or a girl the comments started. I was actually shocked when I witnessed what was commonly said to a 2-3 year old girl versus what was said to her brother.

I couldn't isolate exactly why attitudes towards women's sexuality have changed because I have never studied it. At a guess I would say its due to combination of things including contraception, sex education, music, MTV, movies, the internet, books, porn, the swinging 60s and 70s. Western society has been moving away from conservative, Christian values for a few decades now to a much more liberal, tolerant way of thinking. Personal pleasure and happiness is a big part of western society.

Why is it bad that boys and girls are raised differently? As long as they are both given equal opportunities I don't see what the issue is.

selectamatic

LLMMLL wrote: »

So you’re saying...

py2006

The epitome of modern feminism...

MikeyTaylor

New title suggestion:
"Help us conclusively decide on a permanent title for this Louise O'Neill thread".
P.S. Laura W says hi.

DickSwiveller

I see O Neill's play got a very positive write up in the IT.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I couldn't isolate exactly why attitudes towards women's sexuality have changed because I have never studied it. At a guess I would say its due to combination of things including contraception, sex education, music, MTV, movies, the internet, books, porn, the swinging 60s and 70s. Western society has been moving away from conservative, Christian values for a few decades now to a much more liberal, tolerant way of thinking. Personal pleasure and happiness is a big part of western society.

Why is it bad that boys and girls are raised differently? As long as they are both given equal opportunities I don't see what the issue is.

Take attitudes towards gay people as an example. Sure you could say “oh attitudes in general have liberalised naturally” but that ignores the quite heavy campaigning that gay people have had to do along the way to achieve their goals.

And this campaigning does have an effect. I know people who were mildly anti-gay before campaigning on the marriage referendum started and are now completely pro-gay.

LLMMLL

selectamatic wrote: »

So he’s saying black people have nothing left to campaign on? I admit I was a bit confused myself as he refused to give a direct answer.

He raised a number of issues black people have to deal with in response to my asking him do black people have anything left to campaign for?

Do you have a different interpretation of his post or just snark?

selectamatic

LLMMLL wrote: »

Do you have a different interpretation of his post or just snark?

Ulysses Gaze

LLMMLL wrote: »

So he’s saying black people have nothing left to campaign on? I admit I was a bit confused myself as he refused to give a direct answer.

He raised a number of issues black people have to deal with in response to my asking him do black people have anything left to campaign for?

Do you have a different interpretation of his post or just snark?

They've lot's to campaign on in the US.

Like stopping the epidemic of black on black murders in Urban areas.

And in the UK too where black on black knife crime in London is skyrocketing

But Black Lives Matter...except it seems when black kids are killing other black kids.

Omackeral

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

They've lot's to campaign on in the US.

We were talking about Ireland but when the poster you're replying to copped there's really no substance to their argument here at home, they tried the old switcheroo tactics by shoehorning in politics from abroad. This, despite the fact they took major umbrage at ''irrelevant'' questions elsewhere... even though those questions were relevant... to here! Mental gymnastics really is what it is and that kinda sums up your modern day online feminist in this country IMO.

Ulysses Gaze

Omackeral wrote: »

We were talking about Ireland but when the poster you're replying to copped there's really no substance to their argument here at home, they tried the old switcheroo tactics by shoehorning in politics from abroad. This, despite the fact they took major umbrage at ''irrelevant'' questions elsewhere... even though those questions were relevant... to here! Mental gymnastics really is what it is and that kinda sums up your modern day online feminist in this country IMO.

Modern Irish women have reached equality in terms of Equality of Opportunity. They can go to college in any field they wish and have careers in any field they wish.

Hence why there are more women than men graduating Medicine and Law and there are now more Female solicitors than Male solicitors, more female than male doctors and more female pharmacists than male pharmacists. These would have been careers dominated by men

If they wish full Equality of Outcome (pay, promotions etc) then they will have to do what men have done. Work the same long hours necessary and be more assertive in negotiations for pay rises and promotions. (i.e. prove they deserve it by evidencing value added work they do and be prepared to walk if they are not going to get pay rises etc).

I work with women who get paid more than me and they deserve it. They work longer hours than I do and some even work weekends. I won't. My decision.

But I am not going to piss and moan about it.

freshpopcorn

LLMMLL wrote: »

They really don't. The highest anti-feminist contributors on this thread such as:

RabbleRouser2k,
givyjoe,
Omackeral,
freshpopcorn,
yourself,
CQD,
tipp_gunner,
OutlawPete,
Dakota Brave Carrot

NONE of you make any significant contribution to the Men's rights thread.

The only ones who post there with any frequency are Wibbs, Zulu and py2006.

So by the standards you guys apply to LON lets call a spade a spade. None of ye give a toss about Men's Rights, unless you can use it to bash feminists.





I'm just using your own standards. Not you specifically, I don't think you peddle the nonsense that LON doesnt care about women in third world countries, or shes a racist because she doesn't tweet about issues in those countries. But its a very common stick to beat her with on this thread. And by these guys standards none of them care about men's rights at all.

Just catching up on this thread.
I am not anti feminist/women.
I don't agree with a lot of the statements Louise has made about her Grand Father(for example), the fact she can't accept how a court case works, how her book/views are pushed in the media.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

Take attitudes towards gay people as an example. Sure you could say “oh attitudes in general have liberalised naturally” but that ignores the quite heavy campaigning that gay people have had to do along the way to achieve their goals.

And this campaigning does have an effect. I know people who were mildly anti-gay before campaigning on the marriage referendum started and are now completely pro-gay.

When they were campaigning because they were being discriminated against? They weren't just playing the victim card there was actual discrimination. As opposed to you and LON who cry that people are oppressing women and when someone asks how are women being oppressed, you shout that they are part of the problem.

Wibbs

Yeah_Right wrote: »

When they were campaigning because they were being discriminated against? They weren't just playing the victim card there was actual discrimination. As opposed to you and LON who cry that people are oppressing women and when someone asks how are women being oppressed, you shout that they are part of the problem.

Of course YR, because those inconvenient facts can't be directly debated away, hence the feverish goalpost moving and deflection. Feminism these days is more a politic and philosophy, even a "faith" of sorts rather than an actual defensible position regarding equality in western countries. And like a faith they stick to their outdated central tenets* like runny poo to a blanket and see any questions as a blasphemy. And given much of western media online and off parrots or at least appears to support that faith, they have their own inquisition should they require. I read an interview with that Peterson fellow(who I have many issues with) who mused that it's almost guaranteed he'll say something "wrong" and then that will be jumped on and it will be game over and he's likely prophetic on that. Yet you can have a university professor in charge of a social sciences and gender feminism studies department that can write on opinion piece in the Washington post where she declares various reasons why "it's OK to hate men". She got static from twitter and the like, but her job and standing will remain secure.

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I am not anti feminist/women.

Just a thought FreshP, in a way by writing it like that you're kinda doing what current "feminists" try to do - usually to stifle any debate - that is; to conflate being anti feminist with being anti women. So if someone comes along, man, or woman for that matter, who says something like "I think feminist theory about [insert subject here] is debatable/inaccurate/plain wrong" too many "feminists" when backed into a logic corner defending it will run to the all too easy air raid siren reply of "then you must hate women!". Most right minded people will naturally be thrown by such an accusation and will either bow out, or struggle to somehow prove they don't. The latter is like blood in the water to sharks.


*QV the earlier posts about how women were always the consistent Victims™ in the past. Total balderdash as anyone with even the weakest grasp of history before 1900 would be well aware of.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

Take attitudes towards gay people as an example. Sure you could say “oh attitudes in general have liberalised naturally” but that ignores the quite heavy campaigning that gay people have had to do along the way to achieve their goals.

And this campaigning does have an effect. I know people who were mildly anti-gay before campaigning on the marriage referendum started and are now completely pro-gay.

Well, here's the thing. I grew up in rather conservative midlands and there weren't any noticeably gay people nearby. Similar story in the very traditional west of Ireland where I spent most of my youth. The use of "gay" was considered a dire insult when I was a teen and even into my 20s (late 1980s), men believed to be gay (whether they were or not) were receiving a lot of negative attention. Bullying, assault, etc.

Now, I can't recall of a single piece of advertising or campaigning while I lived in Ireland until I left in my 30s which sought to raise awareness or acceptance of gay people. In fact, most acceptance came from being exposed to them in University, and later having colleagues in work who were "camp", or obviously gay. It was their behavior and attitude that made being gay acceptable.

Being gay received acceptance long before the SSM issue even came up for debate... and it gained that acceptance because of the gay people who lived openly gay lives, and also the shame Irish people felt for being so backward compared with the rest of Europe. No grand campaigns to change adults minds.

So... no... Attitudes changed long before the heavy campaigning of the SSM and changed naturally as Irish people sought to leave behind the conservative past given to us by our parents or the Church.

DaithiMa

LLMMLL wrote: »

I know people who were mildly anti-gay before campaigning on the marriage referendum started and are now completely pro-gay.

So mildly anti-gay to completely pro-gay you say.... How does that work? Does one have to be pro or anti gay? Am a straight male myself and would probably describe myself as 'meh gay'. I don't really care about other people's sexuality, unless I am attracted to them obviously. Makes no difference to me.

I would imagine the vast amount of people without a vested interest think the same. The anti/pro narrative isn't helpful. And that is the problem with LON. You are either anti women or pro women. There is no middle ground. The reality is that men and women, for the most part in the real world, get along just fine.

AllForIt

Help Louise O'neill choose a new toaster? Erm - it should be one fitted with a speaker that says after you push the leaver "Has the bread consented to be roasted".

py2006

Wibbs wrote: »

Just a thought FreshP, in a way by writing it like that you're kinda doing what current "feminists" try to do - usually to stifle any debate - that is; to conflate being anti feminist with being anti women. So if someone comes along, man, or woman for that matter, who says something like "I think feminist theory about [insert subject here] is debatable/inaccurate/plain wrong" too many "feminists" when backed into a logic corner defending it will run to the all too easy air raid siren reply of "then you must hate women!". Most right minded people will naturally be thrown by such an accusation and will either bow out, or struggle to somehow prove they don't. The latter is like blood in the water to sharks.

As Meatloaf would say, "you took the words right out of my mouth..."

LLMMLL

Omackeral wrote: »

We were talking about Ireland but when the poster you're replying to copped there's really no substance to their argument here at home, they tried the old switcheroo tactics by shoehorning in politics from abroad. This, despite the fact they took major umbrage at ''irrelevant'' questions elsewhere... even though those questions were relevant... to here! Mental gymnastics really is what it is and that kinda sums up your modern day online feminist in this country IMO.

Incorrect.

My first example of there being things to campaign for after legal equality had been reached was black people in the US. There was no switch:

Well if you think like Omackeral does black people in the US should have shut up years ago once they attained legal equality. Dunno what they’re complaining about......

The thing you don’t get is that the argument does not depend on location. If you believe that legal equality means full equality then black people in the US should have nothing to campaign for. Why would their location matter if the general principle: “legal equality is full equality” applies. If location is important is there some kind of rule: “legal equality is full equality in Ireland” but legal equality is not full equality in the US”?

So the argument that women have nothing to campaign for because they have legal equality isn’t a great argument because you don’t seem to believe it yourself.

Now it’s fine to argue that you don’t agree with what they’re campaigning for. But the fact that legal equality has been reached is completely irrelevant to that debate.

We both agree that legal equality does not mean full equality.

LLMMLL

DaithiMa wrote: »

So mildly anti-gay to completely pro-gay you say.... How does that work? Does one have to be pro or anti gay? Am a straight male myself and would probably describe myself as 'meh gay'. I don't really care about other people's sexuality, unless I am attracted to them obviously. Makes no difference to me.

I would imagine the vast amount of people without a vested interest think the same. The anti/pro narrative isn't helpful. And that is the problem with LON. You are either anti women or pro women. There is no middle ground. The reality is that men and women, for the most part in the real world, get along just fine.

No middle ground? The use of the word mildly implies a spectrum. Clearly I am saying there is a middle ground.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, here's the thing. I grew up in rather conservative midlands and there weren't any noticeably gay people nearby. Similar story in the very traditional west of Ireland where I spent most of my youth. The use of "gay" was considered a dire insult when I was a teen and even into my 20s (late 1980s), men believed to be gay (whether they were or not) were receiving a lot of negative attention. Bullying, assault, etc.

Now, I can't recall of a single piece of advertising or campaigning while I lived in Ireland until I left in my 30s which sought to raise awareness or acceptance of gay people. In fact, most acceptance came from being exposed to them in University, and later having colleagues in work who were "camp", or obviously gay. It was their behavior and attitude that made being gay acceptable.

Being gay received acceptance long before the SSM issue even came up for debate... and it gained that acceptance because of the gay people who lived openly gay lives, and also the shame Irish people felt for being so backward compared with the rest of Europe. No grand campaigns to change adults minds.

So... no... Attitudes changed long before the heavy campaigning of the SSM and changed naturally as Irish people sought to leave behind the conservative past given to us by our parents or the Church.

It’s always funny to see people who have no experience of gay issues describe how attitudes changed. It was anything but natural. It wasn’t led by the average young straight persons desire to leave catholic Ireland behind. It was fought for by gay people every step of the way.

And no I didn’t mean poster campaigns by campaigning.

And yes the SSM campaign definitely changed peoples opinions. A relative of mine in 2014 clearly extremely jncomfortable at the thought of two men together told me it was not normal. Fast forward to 2015 and he was talking about how nice the celebrations on Dame st were.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

When they were campaigning because they were being discriminated against? They weren't just playing the victim card there was actual discrimination. As opposed to you and LON who cry that people are oppressing women and when someone asks how are women being oppressed, you shout that they are part of the problem.

I have to laugh at this.

When you asked how women are being oppressed I most definitely did not shout at you that you were part of the problem.

I gave you what you asked for. Examples of what are in my opinion oppression against women.

The fact that you either made up or interpreted that as being shouted down is an example of extreme craziness.

Sky King

It's often claimed that white bread takes a shorter time to toast than bread of colour.

This is known in baking theory as 'white bread privilege'.

keano_afc

Sky King wrote: »

It's often claimed that white bread takes a shorter time to toast than bread of colour.

This is known in baking theory as 'white bread privilege'.

I doubt that LON would get a crumb of comfort from that.

DickSwiveller

Sky King wrote: »

It's often claimed that white bread takes a shorter time to toast than bread of colour.

This is known in baking theory as 'white bread privilege'.

:D:D

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

It’s always funny to see people who have no experience of gay issues describe how attitudes changed. It was anything but natural. It wasn’t led by the average young straight persons desire to leave catholic Ireland behind. It was fought for by gay people every step of the way.

It's always funny how feminists assume that they can understand Gay people better than men, simply because feminists were, what, persecuted in the past too?

The other funny thing is this natural assumption that you know everything about posters here. Many of my friends were gay, and I was 'encouraged' (although manipulated is probably a closer term) to think that my lack of success with women meant that I was gay. So I joined in, although in joining in, I learned that I wasn't actually gay. Interesting experence, and I still have many friends from that period. Although, I'm guessing that your experience in being lesbian or bisexual, gives you better insight into the troubles of gay males in Ireland... naturally.

You're an expert on everything and everyone. You're amazing! Really. The levels of empathy for every situation... and the life you have led to understand the plight of everyone else's lifestyle.

Still.... I've learned that there is no other way than your way. Even though you're female, you have greater insight into everything male, simply because you wish it to be so. [Although it is interesting that I said earlier that attitudes changed because of Gay people actions, not campaigns... and now you're telling me that gay people fought for the changes... almost as if what I said wasn't relevant, but yours was? Amazing]

And no I didn’t mean poster campaigns by campaigning.

Except you're often so vague about what you mean, we're left to... suggest it. And? That's your answer? Perhaps some details?

And yes the SSM campaign definitely changed peoples opinions. A relative of mine in 2014 clearly extremely jncomfortable at the thought of two men together told me it was not normal. Fast forward to 2015 and he was talking about how nice the celebrations on Dame st were.

the SSM campaign definitely changed peoples opinions. Yup. Definitely. Did I say otherwise? I was describing what happened before the SSM campaign.

And I'm sure your friend did say that. Just as many of my friends (and myself) went to the gay pride parades around the world... or went to a variety of "gay" celebrations and remarked on the reduction of muppets or aholes hellbent on violence. Or the religious nutcases who would insult gay people simply because they were different..

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

The thing you don’t get is that the argument does not depend on location.

Well.. that's rather convenient since the original question was specific to Ireland.

His questions. The other posters here.. their questions related to this... all about Ireland. You have consistently sought to widen the scope... but the other posters have repeatedly requested that you deal solely with Ireland. For this issue. This discussion.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, here's the thing. I grew up in rather conservative midlands and there weren't any noticeably gay people nearby. Similar story in the very traditional west of Ireland where I spent most of my youth. The use of "gay" was considered a dire insult when I was a teen and even into my 20s (late 1980s), men believed to be gay (whether they were or not) were receiving a lot of negative attention. Bullying, assault, etc.

Now, I can't recall of a single piece of advertising or campaigning while I lived in Ireland until I left in my 30s which sought to raise awareness or acceptance of gay people. In fact, most acceptance came from being exposed to them in University, and later having colleagues in work who were "camp", or obviously gay. It was their behavior and attitude that made being gay acceptable.

Being gay received acceptance long before the SSM issue even came up for debate... and it gained that acceptance because of the gay people who lived openly gay lives, and also the shame Irish people felt for being so backward compared with the rest of Europe. No grand campaigns to change adults minds.

So... no... Attitudes changed long before the heavy campaigning of the SSM and changed naturally as Irish people sought to leave behind the conservative past given to us by our parents or the Church.

This revisionism bugs me. The reluctance to give any credit to. The tireless campaigning of people like David Norris to have homosexuality decriminalised. The campaign came to fruition in he early 90s but it didn’t shortly before it succeeded.

Similarly the SSM campaign didn’t start shortly before the referendum. Similarly the abortion campaign didn’t start shortly before the referendum.

These things take years and decades. I can only imagine the abuse David Norris and his peers endured In The 50s 60s 70s and 80, on the way to finally achieving their victory in the 90s. But they did it and it serves nobody to downplay the significance of their work.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

The fact that you either made up or interpreted that as being shouted down is an example of extreme craziness.

Kinda like you claiming that I had forbidden you from talking about sexual violence?


You have brought up black people in the US a few times now and I have tried to ignore it as it is another deflection tactic from you. But here goes. Yes black people have technically achieved equality, legally in the US. You can not discriminate against someone because they are black. However (and this is a big however) there are a lot of laws at both state and federal level that discriminate against black people. Some examples: the sentences for crack vs powder cocaine, funding for inner city schools, health care, congressional districts, voter registration. None of these specifically state that they are discriminating against black people but the reality is that they are.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Kinda like you claiming that I had forbidden you from talking about sexual violence?


You have brought up black people in the US a few times now and I have tried to ignore it as it is another deflection tactic from you. But here goes. Yes black people have technically achieved equality, legally in the US. You can not discriminate against someone because they are black. However (and this is a big however) there are a lot of laws at both state and federal level that discriminate against black people. Some examples: the sentences for crack vs powder cocaine, funding for inner city schools, health care, congressional districts, voter registration. None of these specifically state that they are discriminating against black people but the reality is that they are.

The US discriminates based on wealth, and by extension, education (since good education is dependent on wealth). Wealthy black people have very few issues living in the US, apart from certain areas known for traditional racism. In mainstream America, educated black people from a "reasonable" background have all the same opportunities that white people have. Then, a white person living in traditionally black or Hispanic areas can face all manner of discrimination but that's hardly relevant.

But people don't really want to consider that though. Instead, they focus on the poor (wealth) black people, or those black people living in areas which traditionally have serious social problems. Crime, drugs, inbreeding, mental/physical disabilities... all far more exciting as a basis to talk about regarding equality. Little to no mention of the White people in similar situations... and there are literally millions of white people who are considered to be trash, and have no opportunities to leave their family background behind.

However, that's not going to be useful in this discussion because Feminists want to focus on race as a division. Because then it's easy to link it to gender. But the facts are that the US is a wealth based society, and most discrimination happens because of their backgrounds, and location. There are black communities of doctors, lawyers, teachers etc who have no issues with the police, face no discrimination in their areas, and can be reasonably sure their children will have the same opportunities as anyone else. Although, they could move to LA and be shot by a police officer because they're carrying a concealed weapon or doing drugs in the alleyways.

Feminists (or any minority group supporters) are extremely selective as to what "facts" or statistics they use or allow to be used. The use of the racist card in this discussion is to widen the scope of the conversation and remove the focus from the lack of discrimination against women in Ireland... Because she can't actually show any true discrimination against women in Ireland based on their gender.