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

the purple tin

Wibbs wrote: »

Mostly because as I've suggested before; "feminism", particularly of the type we're discussing here and the most vocal(as the description that follows have more access to media) is very much a young university (over)educated white middle class cosseted suburban self obsessed woman politic/faith and its subjects of concern are those concerns of young university educated White middle class suburban women.

Things like you describe only come across their radar on occasion. The once a year feel good Trocaire box of feminist rhetoric that they can tweet as a prize. Otherwise it's the usual local and what they feel applicable to their lives stuff. QV the talk about universities and rape stats* therein. Do a bit of digging and you find that the risks of sexual assault are higher for women not in college(even though rape and sexual assault stats have been consistently dropping since the 80's) and universities are safer. But given the above demographic they're going to be focused on their local issue. Child brides and genital mutilation don't affect them.

Plus these are potentially risky waters to navigate for this politic and the political philosophy that is behind it. The very understandable concern of being seen as "racist" for condemning cultural practices and the notion of cultural equivalence itself is one rock they could perish on among their peers. Far easier and safer to flick off a #metoo tweet because someone told you a drunk muppet started at your tits outside the Freshers ball of UCD/C.





*which are bogus as fuck anyway.

Has she ever tackled/mentioned direct provision?

Diversity for Hire

Have Louise ever talked about the endemic Pakistani rape gangs that have been allowed abuse thousands of white girls in the UK?

MikeyTaylor

Omackeral wrote: »

Absolutely not.

The constant changing of the title is fücking ridiculous.

Wibbs

the purple tin wrote: »

Has she ever tackled/mentioned direct provision?

No clue TBH. I would suspect however and it is supposition of course, that she would follow the Party Line™ of it being a Good Thing™. Again because to question such subjects leaves one open to critique from one's peers and possible loss of earnings. Critique from one's "enemies" is sought as a litmus test of how right you are.

MikeyTaylor

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

The constant changing of the title is fücking ridiculous.

your obsession with Laura Whitmore/Davin whatever his name is/Dara Quilty is ridiculous and sad

Outlaw Pete

There was a bit of a furor over an article on Buzzfeed a few days ago (retweeted by a lot of rad fem accounts) which spoke about women that make false allegations of rape as actually being quite vulnerable women who should never have been prosecuted to begin with.

Vulnerable Women Are Routinely Prosecuted – And Imprisoned – For False Rape Claims In The UK

The article (which is quite long) centers on the case of Rhiannon Brooker and makes excuses for what she did, along with a number of other women. In almost every incidence they trivialize the possible implication of false allegations.

The relevance here being of course that Ms O'Neill tweeted about it and said:


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/1012692796384280576

padd b1975

Since when are police required to ask for consent before making an arrest???

Diversity for Hire

That article is insane. And women will wonder why most men want nothing to do with feminism.

MikeyTaylor

Permanent title suggestion: "Louse O'Neill to become the 7th member of Rack House Pilfer". I suggest we cast iron that as the title and not change it.

Wibbs

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The relevance here being of course that Ms O'Neill tweeted about it and said:


https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/1012692796384280576

The "feminist" mantra and central tenet: Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame. So hardly a surprise. This fits into that rule quite comfortably. Everything on every subject "feminists" say fits into it. Women no matter what must get a free get out of gaol pass every time.

Woman kills her children? Poor thing was a "vulnerable" victim with mental illness/post natal depression, distant/abusive husband. All which could be true, but when men kill their kids? Monster, evil, deranged. Nobody will suggest he's a "victim". Same with this false rape charges stuff. Lying cow attempts to destroy another person's life? Again a "vulnerable" victim with mental illness and no doubt something something "patriarchy". Poor dear. And sure he was probably guilty too. No smoke without fire y'know.

I dunno when those men and women on the fence or blasé about this hardline cultish movement will have the penny drop. It has almost nothing to do with equality any more. It's mostly the rantings of the aforementioned cosseted middle class suburban white girls who want ever more cosseting and even fewer responsibilities attached to their decisions and actions. When it suits. When it doesn't it is always somebody else's fault; IE men/the patriarchy. Oh and always somebody else's responsibility to fix. Usually men.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

The "feminist" mantra and central tenet: Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame. So hardly a surprise. This fits into that rule quite comfortably. Everything on every subject "feminists" say fits into it. Women no matter what must get a free get out of goal pass every time.

Woman kills her children? Poor thing was a "vulnerable" victim with mental illness/post natal depression, distant/abusive husband. All which could be true, but when men kill their kids? Monster, evil, deranged. Nobody will suggest he's a "victim". Same with this false rape charges stuff. Lying cow attempts to destroy another person's life? Again a "vulnerable" victim with mental illness and no doubt something something "patriarchy". Poor dear. And sure he was probably guilty too. No smoke without fire y'know.

I dunno when those men and women on the fence or blasbout this hardline cultish movement will have the penny drop. It has almost nothing to do with equality any more. It's mostly the rantings of the aforementioned cosseted middle class suburban white girls who want ever more cosseting and even fewer responsibilities attached to their decisions and actions. When it suits. When it doesn't it is always somebody else's fault; IE men/the patriarchy. Oh and always somebody else's responsibility to fix. Usually men.

It's not going to happen, it's gone too far. We've seen it with race/religion stuff in England with the grooming gangs, no-one can say anything. Today I heard on the radio about the mess left after the parade yesterday. Lad from the Green Party, pussy-footing around, wouldn't actually make any criticism of the participants, just talked about rubbish being left behind. Then today Frances Fitzgerald calls for a 50-50 cabinet split after the next election. Won't happen but it's on the way very soon. Speaking against it simply isn't allowed.

the purple tin

What about Lou making that ambiguous and vaguely creepy claim about her grandfather?

I don't think she has ever brought it up again or attempted to explain it further.

One of the benifits of living and working inside of a bubble.

the purple tin

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not going to happen, it's gone too far. We've seen it with race/religion stuff in England with the grooming gangs, no-one can say anything. Today I heard on the radio about the mess left after the parade yesterday. Lad from the Green Party, pussy-footing around, wouldn't actually make any criticism of the participants, just talked about rubbish being left behind. Then today Frances Fitzgerald calls for a 50-50 cabinet split after the next election. Won't happen but it's on the way very soon. Speaking against it simply isn't allowed.

Reminds me of something Jordan Peterson said; along the lines of 'the far left is without doubt the greatest threat to free speech today'.

Hector Savage

So Louise O Neill is disturbed that women that make FALSE accusations of rape are prosecuted ??

Even for her this is a low ..

Hector Savage

Hector Savage wrote: »

So Louise O Neill is disturbed that women that make FALSE accusations of rape are prosecuted ??

Even for her this is a low ..

It's really not. Stuff I was reading 4-5 years ago and told not to worry about is getting more and more mainstream and accepted in some ways. People love dismissing something they don't like as a slippery slope argument as if that somehow ends an argument. Unfortunately too many people accept that.

Wibbs

Hector Savage wrote: »

So Louise O Neill is disturbed that women that make FALSE accusations of rape are prosecuted ??

Even for her this is a low ..

Not in her "feminist" headspace H. In that headspace it's quite simply inconceivable that a Woman™ could be responsible for her actions, even negative and nasty actions. Even when her fellows acknowledge a Woman™ might be responsible or a nasty individual, it is still not her fault. It just doesn't compute for them. This is the ultimate irony of current "feminism". It demands equality, yet the creature of equals they describe as a Woman™ is framed as a half demented agentless woman child in need of constant protection from reality. And Men™. Still it's a great gig if you are such a woman and can get adult men and women and society to buy into that.

MikeyTaylor

I, MICHAEL HIERONYMOUS TAYLOR, DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE THAT I DO NOT GIVE A STINKING FVCK ABOUT LOUISE O'NEILL. I MAKE THIS SOLEMN DECLARATION CONSCIENTIOUSLY BELIEVING THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 1835.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Hector Savage wrote: »

So Louise O Neill is disturbed that women that make FALSE accusations of rape are prosecuted ??

Even for her this is a low ..

Playing devil's advocate here a bit, I know, but I think this is more in reference to the case of women who genuinely believe they've been raped.

Women who actually openly lie about rape for malicious reasons is a different scenario, and yes - should be prosecuted and punished. They can cause a serious amount of damage to genuine rape victims.

retro:electro

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

I, MICHAEL HIERONYMOUS TAYLOR, DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE THAT I DO NOT GIVE A STINKING FVCK ABOUT LOUISE O'NEILL. I MAKE THIS SOLEMN DECLARATION CONSCIENTIOUSLY BELIEVING THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 1835.

Cringe

Owryan

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

The constant changing of the title is fücking ridiculous.

If you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out

MikeyTaylor

Omackeral wrote: »

Very virtuous, fair play checking your privilege!

Say it with me now:
"I, (INSERT FULL NAME HERE), DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE THAT I DO NOT GIVE A STINKING FVCK ABOUT LOUISE O'NEILL.I MAKE THIS SOLEMN DECLARATION CONSCIENTIOUSLY BELIEVING THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 1835."

The double speak and conflation in that Buzzfeed article is almost art tbh. It's no better than some of the Red Pill stuff other than how many and who are willing to call it out.

MikeyTaylor

Owryan wrote: »

If you don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out

You're just doing it to annoy me, aren't ya?
P.S. Feel free to make the solemn sincere declaration I just have whenever you feel like it.

Ulysses Gaze

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

I, MICHAEL HIERONYMOUS TAYLOR, DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE THAT I DO NOT GIVE A STINKING FVCK ABOUT LOUISE O'NEILL. I MAKE THIS SOLEMN DECLARATION CONSCIENTIOUSLY BELIEVING THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 1835.

From the man who kept on bringing up Iowa and Des Moines.......

Owryan

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

Say it with me now:
"I, (INSERT FULL NAME HERE), DO SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE THAT I DO NOT GIVE A STINKING FVCK ABOUT LOUISE O'NEILL.I MAKE THIS SOLEMN DECLARATION CONSCIENTIOUSLY BELIEVING THE SAME TO BE TRUE AND BY VIRTUE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT 1835."

Thanks for the offer but I must decline, because I do give a damn about the type of message that lon is sending.

I have 3 young boys and I do not want them growing up in a society where they are prejudged as potential rapists or are simply judged for being (non)women.

This form of feminism, where men are seen as evil is dangerous and needs to be challenged.
I just finished a 4yr degree course in a largely female field. Just some of the messages we were given were:
*all sex is non consenting and rape
*men cannot be the victim of domestic violence
*women cannot succeed because of men, when they do it is purely to keep women happy.
*my good grades are not because of hard work but because of white male privilege.
*the guy who won over all student of the year won because of patriarchy.

Only 2 of my lecturers in those 4 years were men, the rest female, the programme chair is female, yet it's still men backing men.

They are giving young females all the excuses they need for when they don't succeed.

And breath........

Silentcorner

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate here a bit, I know, but I think this is more in reference to the case of women who genuinely believe they've been raped.

Women who actually openly lie about rape for malicious reasons is a different scenario, and yes - should be prosecuted and punished. They can cause a serious amount of damage to genuine rape victims.

I might be wrong here, but it isn't even on the statute books...its not a crime as such, instead you are charged with "perverting the court of justice"...which I believe should be changed, it should be just as serious as rape itself and the sentence should reflect that in my opinion, I'm led to believe that it is quite common, it rarely makes it past the first investigating officer but it can do awful damage.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Silentcorner wrote: »

I might be wrong here, but it isn't even on the statute books...its not a crime as such, instead you are charged with "perverting the court of justice"...which I believe should be changed, it should be just as serious as rape itself and the sentence should reflect that in my opinion, I'm led to believe that it is quite common, it rarely makes it past the first investigating officer but it can do awful damage.

Wouldn't have any disagreement with you here. Problem is it's going to be an incredibly difficult thing to prove or legislate for.

MikeyTaylor

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

From the man who kept on bringing up Iowa and Des Moines.......

You guys brought up LON moving to Des Moines to join the Iowa Institute in the first place, so there.

MikeyTaylor

MikeyTaylor wrote: »

You guys brought up LON moving to Des Moines to join the Iowa Institute in the first place, so there.

You'd say something if it was even funny..

Diversity for Hire

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Playing devil's advocate here a bit, I know, but I think this is more in reference to the case of women who genuinely believe they've been raped.

Women who actually openly lie about rape for malicious reasons is a different scenario, and yes - should be prosecuted and punished. They can cause a serious amount of damage to genuine rape victims.

And ruin the lives of innocent men.