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

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Em... what?! :eek:

He “refuted” a post about the great work done by the gaybrights movement with a post about paedophiles in a Civil Liberties group in the 70s.

sydthebeat

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.

So if there is no legal imperative stopping equality, maybe its women themselves who are part of the problem that social inequality exists?

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

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.

Come now givyjoe. You must see there’s an issue with people who can’t see that general principles can be refuted with non-local examples. Don’t make me get out my finger puppets.

LLMMLL

sydthebeat wrote: »

So if there is no legal imperative stopping equality, maybe its women themselves who are part of the problem that social inequality exists?

Yup they should totally stop sexually harassing themselves.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Come now givyjoe. You must see there’s an issue with people who can’t see that general principles can be refuted with non-local examples. Don’t make me get out my finger puppets.

Case.. in point... irony overload.

Also, if your point was actually valid, you wouldn't have needed to use non-local examples.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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

The original question related to discrimination that women experienced in Ireland, which then expanded to whether legal equality equaled full equality.

And yet, you have broadened that with comparisons with gay people, black people, the situation in the US, etc.

So...

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

Then the answer is that it does as long as people exercise their rights to enforce the law regarding their equality.

When people do not exercise their rights and refuse to bring the law into the situation, they weaken their status of equality. Simple. More campaigns for extra rights aren't needed. The need is there for people to exercise their existing rights.

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.

Well.. no it doesn't since the cultural background of other countries is drastically different from Ireland. You're merely trying to complicate the issue.

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.

And I'm asking once more for specifics.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

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

So until that comes in women currently do not have full legal equality?

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

But in the examples you have of black people in the US being disproportionately affected by a policy that was not on the face of it directed at them you seemed to think that affected their legal equality.

I mean one example you gave is differing sentences based on two types of drugs which obviously does not seem to be aimed at a particular race.

So if what seems to be a general non-targeted law can affect a groups legal equality because that group is disproportionately affected by that law, why does this not apply to women?

sydthebeat

LLMMLL wrote: »

Yup they should totally stop sexually harassing themselves.

As a person who has worked in a lot of different bars over the years, I can tell you that sexual harassment is not a 'male only' trait.... In fact I could honestly state that a drunk hen party is worse than anything I've ever witnessed.

Also, sexual harassment is against the law and any women, or man, who feels they are the victim should report it to the police. The law doesn't discriminate on the grounds of gender.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

You gave a list of things which are not even remotely possible to legislate. The perception of women as being sluts if they sleep around? Seriously?

How about giving a definite list of areas in which women face discrimination in Ireland that can actually be addressed directly.

Once more. Specifics, and a bit of a description for each (without having us guess as to what you're referring to)

givyjoe

sydthebeat wrote: »

As a person who has worked in a lot of different bars over the years, I can tell you that sexual harassment is not a 'male only' trait.... In fact I could honestly state that a drunk hen party is worse than anything I've ever witnessed.

Also, sexual harassment is against the law and any women, or man, who feels they are the victim should report it to the police. The law doesn't discriminate on the grounds of gender.

It's completely bonkers 'logic' anyway. Sexual harrassment is somehow linked to gender inequality?

LLMMLL

sydthebeat wrote: »

As a person who has worked in a lot of different bars over the years, I can tell you that sexual harassment is not a 'male only' trait.... In fact I could honestly state that a drunk hen party is worse than anything I've ever witnessed.

Also, sexual harassment is against the law and any women, or man, who feels they are the victim should report it to the police. The law doesn't discriminate on the grounds of gender.

Actually there’s a massive impartial survey done by the CDC in America about sexual harassment and it’s overwhelmingly men who are the harassers. If you look earlier in the thread you’ll find extensive debate around it.

I agree with you on bars. I’ve discussed sexual harassment with my male friends and the only one who was harassed worked as a glass collector in his early 20s.

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

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.

Oh, and I do ignore people. 4 people in my whole time on boards. But like, most people, I give second/third/fourth/etc chances in the hopes that they've developed enough to have a reasonable conversation without trolling.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You gave a list of things which are not even remotely possible to legislate. The perception of women as being sluts if they sleep around? Seriously?

How about giving a definite list of areas in which women face discrimination in Ireland that can actually be addressed directly.

Once more. Specifics, and a bit of a description for each (without having us guess as to what you're referring to)

I never claimed that legislation was the way to address these inequalities.

Addressing directly does not have to mean legislation. While you clearly disagree with them (or how you perceive they’d be run) consent classes are non-legislative and directly address issues of sexual violence.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

So until that comes in women currently do not have full legal equality?



But in the examples you have of black people in the US being disproportionately affected by a policy that was not on the face of it directed at them you seemed to think that affected their legal equality.

I mean one example you gave is differing sentences based on two types of drugs which obviously does not seem to be aimed at a particular race.

So if what seems to be a general non-targeted law can affect a groups legal equality because that group is disproportionately affected by that law, why does this not apply to women?

FFS! You really do like to twist **** all over the place and claim people meant one thing when they said something else. I said institutional racism and deeply entrenched racist views in the US oppresses black people there. I gave some broad examples of it. Very broad and general. I also said comparing racism in the US to sexism in Ireland is BS.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Oh, and I do ignore people. 4 people in my whole time on boards. But like, most people, I give second/third/fourth/etc chances in the hopes that they've developed enough to have a reasonable conversation without trolling.

I think you’re in that state of mind when you have to demonise people who disagree with you?

Do you know what trolling is? Not what you think it is but what it actually is accepted to be.

Genuinely curious here.

LLMMLL

Yeah_Right wrote: »

FFS! You really do like to twist **** all over the place and claim people meant one thing when they said something else. I said institutional racism and deeply entrenched racist views in the US oppresses black people there. I gave some broad examples of it. Very broad and general. I also said comparing racism in the US to sexism in Ireland is BS.

I didn’t twist one thing you said.

Are you not saying that a law that may seem to be not targeted at a particular group of people (in this case black people) can disproportiantely affect them and therefore affect their legal equality?

If you weren’t making that point what point are you making with your drugs example?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I never claimed that legislation was the way to address these inequalities.

Addressing directly does not have to mean legislation. While you clearly disagree with them (or how you perceive they’d be run) consent classes are non-legislative and directly address issues of sexual violence.

Brilliant. Ahh I love feminists. There is no chance of actual genuine equality because you're constantly changing the goalposts. The law and the enforcement of those laws aren't enough because there will always be new inequalities to provide the need for more rights for women... which will be demanded through the law, which most people adhere to.

Awe inspiring. And incredibly sexist since, in each case, to raise women higher, men will naturally have to step a little further down.

This is not about equality. Not anymore. It's simply about women. :rolleyes:

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I think you’re in that state of mind when you have to demonise people who disagree with you?

Do you know what trolling is? Not what you think it is but what it actually is accepted to be.

Genuinely curious here.

demonise? Who? El_D? Who has a history of exasperating the regular posters on boards into regularly ignoring him?

Or do you mean yourself, who has used sarcasm, ironic gestures, and "subtle" insults regarding other peoples posts within the last few pages?

Right. And yes, I'm in a mood. It's called "not putting up with the BS".

givyjoe

Deleted User wrote: »

Brilliant. Ahh I love feminists. There is no chance of actual genuine equality because you're constantly changing the goalposts. The law and the enforcement of those laws aren't enough because there will always be new inequalities to provide the need for more rights for women... which will be demanded through the law, which most people adhere to.

Awe inspiring. And incredibly sexist since, in each case, to raise women higher, men will naturally have to step a little further down.

This is not about equality. Not anymore. It's simply about women. :rolleyes:

Interesting choice of words to be honest.. that legislation isn't necessarily a way to address these inequalities. Sounds a lot like vigilantism.

Don't like a court result.. ? sure he's guilty anyway.
Innocent until proven guilty, nah.. why follow due to process when you can go straight to career ruining.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

So you don’t like my posting style but decide to copy it. Ok.

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.

It really wasn’t. There was no appreciable difference between 2000 and 2010. I don’t think there was a noticeable difference until 2012 where things started to change more rapidly.

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.

Because were discussing the gay rights movement to make points relevant to this thread. Thought that’d be pretty obvious.

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

You don’t have to. I’m saying it contributed. I applaud you for that. Because the vast majority of straight males in the early noughties would not have. I have direct experience of their attitudes by the way.

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...

Gay pride parades are widely acknowledged as being a crucial part of the gay rights movement although the bigger ones are criticised for being too commercial these days. I’m glad you seem to know better though.

While gay people sharing their lives was a crucial part of the marriage referendum, it was not the major player during the noughties. Gay people had to get to the point where they felt they could share their lives and this most certainly was not an organic natural progress.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Brilliant. Ahh I love feminists. There is no chance of actual genuine equality because you're constantly changing the goalposts. The law and the enforcement of those laws aren't enough because there will always be new inequalities to provide the need for more rights for women... which will be demanded through the law, which most people adhere to.

Awe inspiring. And incredibly sexist since, in each case, to raise women higher, men will naturally have to step a little further down.

This is not about equality. Not anymore. It's simply about women. :rolleyes:

I thought you didn’t like when someone assumed stuff about your posts that you hadn’t actually said.

I’ve been perfectly clear from the start that legal equality is not full equality.

I’ve never said that new stuff can be invented. I gave 5 specific examples.

I’ve never said these had to be addressed by law. In fact in the metoo thread we had the same discussion where I said I thought the law was unlikely to be successful in addressing some issues. So there’s no goalpost shifting.

Maybe I should thank you, next time you claim I’m putting words in your mouth and are going to ignore me I can quote your above post as an example of extreme hypocrisy.

LLMMLL

givyjoe wrote: »

Interesting choice of words to be honest.. that legislation isn't necessarily a way to address these inequalities. Sounds a lot like vigilantism.

Vigilantism? I’m actually in stitches here.

LLMMLL

[Deleted User] wrote: »

demonise? Who? El_D? Who has a history of exasperating the regular posters on boards into regularly ignoring him?

Or do you mean yourself, who has used sarcasm, ironic gestures, and "subtle" insults regarding other peoples posts within the last few pages?

Right. And yes, I'm in a mood. It's called "not putting up with the BS".

You think el duderino is a troll? Care to show any particular trolling post with reference to the definition of trolling?

I find debating with you frustrating. Does that make you a troll?

py2006

A couple of incredibly questionable posters on here. How many circles can you go in? Just a suggestion for those getting irritated, try not respond or place on ignore so we can get back to good aul LON.

Yeah_Right

LLMMLL wrote: »

I didn’t twist one thing you said.

Are you not saying that a law that may seem to be not targeted at a particular group of people (in this case black people) can disproportiantely affect them and therefore affect their legal equality?

If you weren’t making that point what point are you making with your drugs example?

Yes I was using that as one example of laws in the US that disproportionately affect black people.

You equated it to changes to policies around single parents, stay at home parents and carers. I don't know enough about these policies as they have never really affected me. I do know my OH got a nice rebate from the taxman every year as she was a single parent. She also got grants/funding from the government to pay for her son to go to uni. Can you tell me what it is/was about these policies that was sexist and oppressed women?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

So you don’t like my posting style but decide to copy it. Ok.

God no. I have my own form of sarcasm that I wheel out. I've been on boards long before you, and developed my own attitude when needed.

It really wasn’t. There was no appreciable difference between 2000 and 2010. I don’t think there was a noticeable difference until 2012 where things started to change more rapidly.

I'm beginning to think you're much younger than me if you think there wasn't much change in Ireland regarding gay men during that period. The difference was the change in social perception. For all your dismissal of the importance of the law, recent times have simply brought about the legal changes and official recognition for gay people.

Gay pride parades are widely acknowledged as being a crucial part of the gay rights movement although the bigger ones are criticised for being too commercial these days. I’m glad you seem to know better though.

And this is the reason why distinguishing between Ireland and other countries is so important. The manner in which Gay people gained acceptance in other countries came about in a different manner. The Gay pride display finally found acceptance in Ireland much later compared to the general acceptance of homosexuality by the common person.

Do I know better? I wonder. At the beginning of this thread, I would simply have considered us to have different experiences... but considering the way you argue these points, I am starting to question your direct knowledge of how Ireland became more accepting of gay people and their choices.

While gay people sharing their lives was a crucial part of the marriage referendum, it was not the major player during the noughties. Gay people had to get to the point where they felt they could share their lives and this most certainly was not an organic natural progress.

You keep talking about the SSM. The distinguishing change in Irish society was the ability for gay people to express their behavior (and love) in public, without public condemnation or physical assault. The ability to be openly gay in the workplace without losing their jobs. Many other examples of Irish society becoming more accepting. The SSM was a wonderful step towards complete equality, but there have been far more important changes in Irish society.

The_Kew_Tour

Was there any outage from her about recent sex attacks of young women in this country?

LLMMLL

LLMMLL wrote: »

I thought you didn’t like when someone assumed stuff about your posts that you hadn’t actually said.

I’ve been perfectly clear from the start that legal equality is not full equality.

Yup... although perfectly clear wouldn't be my first description. It's taken this long to finally understand where you're coming from.

I’ve never said that new stuff can be invented. I gave 5 specific examples.

You gave five vague examples which needed to be discussed before we understood what they referred to. And even then, they weren't examples relating to the original question.

I’ve never said these had to be addressed by law. In fact in the metoo thread we had the same discussion where I said I thought the law was unlikely to be successful in addressing some issues. So there’s no goalpost shifting.

Maybe I should thank you, next time you claim I’m putting words in your mouth and are going to ignore me I can quote your above post as an example of extreme hypocrisy.

LOL. (no, not LON) You. OMG. Hilarious.

givyjoe

LLMMLL wrote: »

Vigilantism? I’m actually in stitches here.

Tongue.. in cheek.. will I get out the finger puppets for you? :rolleyes:

But while you're checking the definition of trolling, have a check on the definition of vigilantism.

Boom_Bap

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Was there any outage from her about recent sex attacks of young women in this country?

I think that we have already established on the thread that she doesn't have to cover every single incident involving a female, which is fair.