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

Dravokivich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Well, to further what Klaz was saying. My opinion on either of those referundums weren't influenced by either campaigns. My vote was based on how I felt about those issues themselves and the position the state should be in to support it's citizens, not anyone who was afflicted by them or anything else.

markodaly

LLMMLL wrote: »

Ok so you’re saying if

Yeah_Right

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Absolutely agree. LLONLL kept bringing up black people in the US and it was pretty clear she had no idea what she was talking about. The big difference in the struggle for black people in the US vs women in Ireland, is racism there actually exists.

markodaly

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Stupid ideas are also batted away.

In February 2014, Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, issued an apology for the previous links between the NCCL, as Liberty was then known, and PIE. She said: "It is a source of continuing disgust and horror that even the NCCL had to expel paedophiles from its ranks in 1983 after infiltration at some point in the seventies."

Just because LON and her ilk are campaigning for something, does not necessarily make it good.

El_Duderino 09

Dravokivich wrote: »

Well, to further what Klaz was saying. My opinion on either of those referundums weren't influenced by either campaigns. My vote was based on how I felt about those issues themselves and the position the state should be in to support it's citizens, not anyone who was afflicted by them or anything else.

And your opinion is influenced by the cultural environment. Norris and his peers were working tirelessly to change attitudes and normalise homosexuality. It took decades of work.

Maybe if you were alive 100 years ago or 200 years ago, you would have held the same opinion as you go today but I doubt it.

People are products of their culture. The work on gay rights started decades before the laws changed. The work was to raise awareness and change attitudes. That campaign goes on for decades before the referendum campaign you see in the months leading up to the referendum

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This revisionism bugs me.

Gosh.. we can agree on some things... although what consists of revisionism is probably not one of them

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.

And where did I disparage or downplay his contributions, or others who campaigned for legal change? Not going to find it, are you? But hey! don't let any of that get in the way of your posting style.

Perhaps, read again what I wrote?

And... now.. the definitive reason to ignore you. You simply can't deal with what is written and instead need to go on a crusade about everything.

Dravokivich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And your opinion is influenced by the cultural environment. Norris and his peers were working tirelessly to change attitudes and normalise homosexuality. It took decades of work.

Maybe if you were alive 100 years ago or 200 years ago, you would have held the same opinion as you go today but I doubt it.

People are products of their culture. The work on gay rights started decades before the laws changed. The work was to raise awareness and change attitudes. That campaign goes on for decades before the referendum campaign you see in the months leading up to the referendum

If you knew me you'd be surprise how out of touch I am with culture. The only thing I know about Norris is some scandal about a letter he wrote.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Absolutely agree. LLONLL kept bringing up black people in the US and it was pretty clear she had no idea what she was talking about. The big difference in the struggle for black people in the US vs women in Ireland, is racism there actually exists.

Oh.. I believe sexism against women exists in Ireland. The changes in law and society are still relatively new. Within my lifetime and I'm only approaching "middle aged". It takes time for society to adapt, and for the people with strong views against said changes to die out...hopefully without passing them on to their children.

But then, there is sexism against men in Ireland too. Mainly as a side effect of the feminist movements towards "equality" where resources and attitudes are firmly fixed on improving the lives of women, rather than seeking any real measure of genuine equality.

For my own part, I see little need for women to campaign about anything gender related (apart from health related issues, although even there they're extremely well represented). They have full legal equality with men, and society will change on it's own speed. TBH I suspect that we're going to see a rise of sexism against women (from both genders) simply because of these changes that been pushed regarding victimisation, rape allegations, quotas, favoritism, etc. Many of these changes are not really about equality and more about giving women a free pass from personal responsibility. At some point it's going to backfire.

El_Duderino 09

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

And where did I disparage or downplay his contributions, or others who campaigned for legal change? Not going to find it, are you? But hey! don't let any of that get in the way of your posting style.

Perhaps, read again what I wrote?

Ok reading again what you wrote and this is the bit where you downplayed the work of campaigners who worked over the decades to change attitudes.

“So... no... Attitudes changed long before the heavy campaigning of the SSM and changed naturally...”

Attitudes didn’t change naturally. They changed due to the years of hard work I referred to earlier.

El_Duderino 09

Dravokivich wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And your opinion is influenced by the cultural environment. Norris and his peers were working tirelessly to change attitudes and normalise homosexuality. It took decades of work.

Maybe if you were alive 100 years ago or 200 years ago, you would have held the same opinion as you go today but I doubt it.

People are products of their culture. The work on gay rights started decades before the laws changed. The work was to raise awareness and change attitudes. That campaign goes on for decades before the referendum campaign you see in the months leading up to the referendum

If you knew me you'd be surprise how out of touch I am with culture. The only thing I know about Norris is some scandal about a letter he wrote.

Ok. Not sure whey that got to do with the post You quoted.

Do you think you’re attitudes aren’t heavily influenced by culture and social norms? I’m not really sure what point you’re making.

Yeah_Right

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh.. I believe sexism against women exists in Ireland. The changes in law and society are still relatively new. Within my lifetime and I'm only approaching "middle aged". It takes time for society to adapt, and for the people with strong views against said changes to die out...hopefully without passing them on to their children.

But then, there is sexism against men in Ireland too. Mainly as a side effect of the feminist movements towards "equality" where resources and attitudes are firmly fixed on improving the lives of women, rather than seeking any real measure of genuine equality.

For my own part, I see little need for women to campaign about anything gender related (apart from health related issues, although even there they're extremely well represented). They have full legal equality with men, and society will change on it's own speed. TBH I suspect that we're going to see a rise of sexism against women (from both genders) simply because of these changes that been pushed regarding victimisation, rape allegations, quotas, favoritism, etc. Many of these changes are not really about equality and more about giving women a free pass from personal responsibility. At some point it's going to backfire.

I agree with everything that you've written there. I probably haven't been clear about what I was trying to say. I know that sexism exists in Ireland and other countries. And both genders are guilty of it.

The point I was trying to make was that racism in the US is entrenched. It's generational and institutionalized in a lot of places. Even though it's illegal there are laws and lawmakers that allow it and support it.

Comparing racism in the US to sexism in Ireland isn't comparing apples with oranges. It's comparing apples with pizza.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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]



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



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..

So you give out that I assume things about posters and then proceed to make a rash of assumptions about me? My knowledge of the gay rights movement comes from first hand experience. I’ve been involved in it since 2002.

I’m not saying what you said wasn’t relevant. I’m saying campaigning does not mean poster campaigns. For example LON isn’t behind any poster campaigns that I’m aware of. Campaigning is a much broader thing that includes the types of campaigning seen around referenda but also any public proclamation of gay rights issues. So picking people up on negative comments would be at the less formal end of the scale. In recent years things like blogging and tweeting have sprung up and I include that in campaigning. Basically anyone who has a goal on a certain issue that does something publically to attain that goal. Clearly I didn’t solely mean formal campaigns that GLEN or ME might have run, because that’s not the type of campaigning LON does.

I agree that gay pride celebrations, and by extension your attendance also helped change hearts and minds. But gay pride is a form of campaigning. Gay pride has been politicised to some degree as long as I remember. And in the ME years it was extremely political. The people who took part in gay pride were actively campaigning. The notion that gay rights were inevitable, natural progress is a massive contradiction.

Wibbs

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.

"Internalised misogyny!". That's a phrase I've heard when pointing out that in the US a guilty verdict is more likely in a rape case when there are more men on the jury. Somehow that partriarchy has managed to get to women and instill their propaganda in them even more than men! When I say women are just as X as men I've been called sexist. It's brilliant really.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

I’m not trying to widen the scope. I’m dealing with a specific part of the argument.

Whether it’s relevant if women have legal equality or not.

That would only be relevant if there was nothing to campaign for once legal equality is attained.

So the question is: is this a general principle we should believe, that legal equality means full equality.

So it makes sense to look at this principle across a wide variety of area, not just women in Ireland. If it is a principle then it shouldn’t matter what group or what jurisdiction you’re looking at.

Now from Omackeral response though it was indirect it seems pretty clear he believes black people in the US have legal equality but still have issues to campaign for.

Therefore he doesn’t believe in the GENERAL princeiple that “legal equality means full equality”.

So how can that principle be applied to women in Ireland if it’s not a general principle?

As I said. Feel free to disagree with what feminists campaign for, but the idea that there couldn’t possibly be anything to campaign for once legal equality has been reached is nonsense.

LLMMLL

markodaly wrote: »

Except that’s what he was saying. Would you care to tell me what he actually meant?

Boom_Bap

LLMMLL wrote: »

As I said. Feel free to disagree with what feminists campaign for, but the idea that there couldn’t possibly be anything to campaign for once legal equality has been reached is nonsense.

You are spot on here, there is loads more work to be done, campaigning and action to be taken. There has also been alot of progress made.



But, I think this is the crux of the LON debate, does she actually want equality.


The problem that I see and the negative light on the active campaigning in relation to LON is that she is not looking for equality.

LLMMLL

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 abortion legislation affected women primarily,would you agree (it seems you would by the standards you set for black rights) that therefore legal equality (as opposed to technical legal equality) will only be reached at the end of this year when abortion legislation is brought in?

Do you also believe that since women are more likely to be stay at home parents, single parents, and carers, that any policy that affects these areas rob them of actual legal equality?

Because anytime I’ve seen a feminist link cuts in carers allowance to feminism there’s been strong disagreement from the usual suspects.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

Not true.

Firstly no racist card is being played. Usually that means calling someone a racist. Nobody has called anyone on this thread a racist.

I am using the issues facing black people in the US not to have a debate about the actual issues.

I’m trying to display the fallacy that legal equality equals full equality.

I have given a list of the discrimination women in Ireland face so don’t know where you’re getting this idea that I can’t show any discrimination.

LLMMLL

Boom_Bap wrote: »

You are spot on here, there is loads more work to be done, campaigning and action to be taken. There has also been alot of progress made.



But, I think this is the crux of the LON debate, does she actually want equality.


The problem that I see and the negative light on the active campaigning in relation to LON is that she is not looking for equality.

I’m happy for you to disagree with me about LON.

I’m just relieved that someone finally got the point I’m making about the difference between legal equality and full equality.

Dravokivich

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ok. Not sure whey that got to do with the post You quoted.

Do you think you’re attitudes aren’t heavily influenced by culture and social norms? I’m not really sure what point you’re making.

Not by culture. The concept of social norms is no more than what flavour soup of the day we'll be served up. A different right thing to do and a policy being pushed up for it comes along very regularly.

As I said in my earlier response. My opinions were based on how the state should support it's citizens. Not because of what's happened before.

I've referenced my lack of knowing Norris because you seemed so bent on constantly referencing him as the leader of a change in culture.

I just noticed she has a spot at body&soul this weekend. I might pop along. Anything I should ask?

LLMMLL

markodaly wrote: »

Stupid ideas are also batted away.



Just because LON and her ilk are campaigning for something, does not necessarily make it good.

Great. A post that links the gay rights movement to paedophilia.

Rory28

LLMMLL wrote: »

I’m happy for you to disagree with me about LON.

I’m just relieved that someone finally got the point I’m making about the difference between legal equality and full equality.

What else can be done? How much more equal can society be for Irish Women?

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

And... now.. the definitive reason to ignore you.

You really need to drop this from your repertoire. You’ve said you’re going to ignore me about 5 times so far.

Give it two weeks you’ll be arguing away with el duderino again.

Just accept it.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Great. A post that links the gay rights movement to paedophilia.

Em... what?! :eek:

givyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

I just noticed she has a spot at body&soul this weekend. I might pop along. Anything I should ask?

Ask her how LLMMLLolcano is!

LLMMLL

Rory28 wrote: »

What else can be done? How much more equal can society be for Irish Women?

I posted a list of 5 things a few pages back.

I don’t expect you to agree on those things.

Just happy that some people can see the difference between legal equality and full equality. Gives me hope for the people on this thread.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So you give out that I assume things about posters and then proceed to make a rash of assumptions about me? My knowledge of the gay rights movement comes from first hand experience. I’ve been involved in it since 2002.

well, see, here's the difference. I didn't state one thing about your personal experience or lack of experience until you did.

And honestly, you've done it on more than one occasion previously without anyone raising the point. I just did. A little introspection of your own posting style might be useful for you.

I’m not saying what you said wasn’t relevant. I’m saying campaigning does not mean poster campaigns. For example LON isn’t behind any poster campaigns that I’m aware of. Campaigning is a much broader thing that includes the types of campaigning seen around referenda but also any public proclamation of gay rights issues. So picking people up on negative comments would be at the less formal end of the scale. In recent years things like blogging and tweeting have sprung up and I include that in campaigning. Basically anyone who has a goal on a certain issue that does something publically to attain that goal. Clearly I didn’t solely mean formal campaigns that GLEN or ME might have run, because that’s not the type of campaigning LON does.

When you lack specifics, it's hard for us to know what you're thinking. But then, you provide specifics related to the internet and blogging. And yet, I was talking of 20 years ago when the Internet was still being introduced into Ireland, and even then, being gay was gaining greater acceptance within mainstream Irish society.

And why talk about LON? We were discussing the attitude to gay people within Ireland. It seems you have issues dealing with the issues at hand.

I agree that gay pride celebrations, and by extension your attendance also helped change hearts and minds.

Whoa! I never even came close to suggest that my attendance at these events changed hearts and minds.

But gay pride is a form of campaigning. Gay pride has been politicised to some degree as long as I remember. And in the ME years it was extremely political. The people who took part in gay pride were actively campaigning. The notion that gay rights were inevitable, natural progress is a massive contradiction.

You're skipping past the point. Irish society changed naturally as more gay people became openly gay and shared their lives with us on a daily basis. Gay pride parades or events simply mark them as being different, and difference is a major encouragement to deal harshly with anyone...

It was the boring normal involvement in our lives that changed the perception of gay people in Ireland. You made the point that it wasn't a natural change, and that promotions/campaigns were the defining difference. I disagree with you.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

The abortion legislation affected women primarily,would you agree (it seems you would by the standards you set for black rights) that therefore legal equality (as opposed to technical legal equality) will only be reached at the end of this year when abortion legislation is brought in?

Do you also believe that since women are more likely to be stay at home parents, single parents, and carers, that any policy that affects these areas rob them of actual legal equality?

Because anytime I’ve seen a feminist link cuts in carers allowance to feminism there’s been strong disagreement from the usual suspects.

Yes legally that would be full equality. As far as I know.

No I don't believe that changes to policy around being a single parent or carer robs women of actual legal equality.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

I posted a list of 5 things a few pages back.

I don’t expect you to agree on those things.

Just happy that some people can see the difference between legal equality and full equality. Gives me hope for the people on this thread.

Yet another dig.. you had some cheek earlier in the thread (multiple times) scoffing at posters giving you snark. Your posts are absolutely dripping with irony and hypocrisy.