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

mrsdewinter

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yeah i read it too and it was grand. Just a bit of a back story on Louise, how she writes, her eating troubles, and the like.

The only thing that annoyed me was the choice, by the editor, to use the quote "The hardest place to maintain my feminism is in a relationship with a straight male" in the heading, online heading can't remember if it was in the written edition. This isn't discussed in the piece and is only referenced by I think Una was writing about watching a clip of Louise talking to TCD students and that's where Louise mentions the line. It's a very poor choice of heading as it's nothing to do with what they actually talk about.

Thank you! The issues raised by the headline weren't explored at all in the article. And the article covered a lot of ground: eating disorders, sudden fame, online abuse... Was that the best line?

Ralf and Florian

Bunny Colvin wrote: »

Where is Sam Boland. I'm not on Twitter but I want to know if he is.

Sam seems to have left Twitter. Pity, he was good for a bit of unintentional comedy.

donegaLroad

O'Neill and O'Donnell offered themselves as vassals of King Philip II of Spain in late 1595, and suggested that Archduke Albert might be crowned Prince of Ireland, which was declined. In late 1599, in a strong position after Essex's failed campaign, O'Neill sent a list of 22 proposed terms for a peace agreement to Queen Elizabeth, including a request on the status of future English viceroys. This amounted to accepting English sovereignty over Ireland as a reality, while hoping for tolerance and a strong Irish-led administration. The proposal was ignored.

DEFTLEFTHAND

What's with the term cuck? Ryan Tubbs has been described as one.

I know a cukold is a weak spineless male who lets his wife be drilled by other males. Why does this apply to tubs though, I can't imagine there would be a large group of suitors for the Plane Jane Louise. Her toxic opinions and attitude would also be a major turn off to most men.

Ulysses Gaze

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What's with the term cuck? Ryan Tubbs has been described as one.

I know a cukold is a weak spineless male who lets his wife be drilled by other males. Why does this apply to tubs though, I can't imagine there would be a large group of suitors for the Plane Jane Louise. Her toxic opinions and attitude would also be a major turn off to most men.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cuck

Sky King

Sonics2k wrote: »

I actually can't stand the woman. I'm just baffled that you people insist on giving her more hits and recognition.

She's a bloody nobody, but people here act like her opinion actually has any impact.

Well, it's been said before by someone else, but I tend to agree - her views and opinions are curiously, really compelling. I just happen to find it incredibly interesting that someone can view the world the way she does.

Though there's a lot of stuff being posted in this thread that doesn't sit right with me at all - particularly comments about her appearance.

pilly

Sky King wrote:

Though there's a lot of stuff being posted in this thread that doesn't sit right with me at all - particularly comments about her appearance.

The lowest common denominator will always start on someone's appearance. It's not a pleasant way to go.

The Rape of Lucretia

pilly wrote: »

The lowest common denominator will always start on someone's appearance.

When the subject is a woman anyway. Generally not if it is a man. But a woman's appearance is much more part of what defines her than it is of a man, and it is intrinsically human (for both men and women) to judge a woman to a great degree on her looks. Indeed, being judged on their looks is very important to women themselves too - go into any department store and the first thing inside the door is a floor full of cosmetics, selling them a dream they are programmed to seek.

hatrickpatrick

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

With all due respect, they do in their hole.

_Dara_ wrote: »

I don’t think interviewers have to be impartial really. They’re not reporting news. They often make comments on their subject, in fact I think many interviewers excel at being pretty judgemental. Read some of Lynn Barber’s interviews and you won’t think that being impartial is a requirement of the job. The subject is often filtered through the writer’s own worldview.

Same as columnists really who write opinion pieces. They aren’t held to impartiality either.

Didn't we have radio presenters being officially penalised for expressing the merest hint of an opinion on gay marriage during that referendum campaign? I could've sworn I remember a big furore over it at the time.

hatrickpatrick

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What's with the term cuck? Ryan Tubbs has been described as one.

I know a cukold is a weak spineless male who lets his wife be drilled by other males. Why does this apply to tubs though, I can't imagine there would be a large group of suitors for the Plane Jane Louise. Her toxic opinions and attitude would also be a major turn off to most men.

The term cuck has been co-opted by the alt-right as a catch-all term to describe the left or even the centre. At this stage it's the 21st century equivalent of calling someone you disagree with a commie. I think the term was originally used to specifically describe men who were seen as "enablers" of radical feminism, in other words turkeys voting for christmas kind of thing, but as usual with political terms it ballooned and lost all meaning in the process.

neonsofa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Didn't we have radio presenters being officially penalised for expressing the merest hint of an opinion on gay marriage during that referendum campaign? I could've sworn I remember a big furore over it at the time.

But this article isn't a discussion about a referendum?

professore

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

When the subject is a woman anyway. Generally not if it is a man. But a woman's appearance is much more part of what defines her than it is of a man, and it is intrinsically human (for both men and women) to judge a woman to a great degree on her looks. Indeed, being judged on their looks is very important to women themselves too - go into any department store and the first thing inside the door is a floor full of cosmetics, selling them a dream they are programmed to seek.

Of course men are judged on their appearance and wealth too. Justin Trudeau and Emannuel Macron were elected and even Barack Obama because of their looks. Trump's hair and small hands are forever in the media. Only intelligent people vote for politicians based on their policies and not their looks, personal lives or fancy populist slogans.

By the way this Louise O'Neill thread is out of control.

hatrickpatrick

neonsofa wrote: »

But this article isn't a discussion about a referendum?

I assumed political impartiality rules applied across the board and not just in relation to active vote campaigns. I may have been mistaken?

The Rape of Lucretia

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I assumed political impartiality rules applied across the board and not just in relation to active vote campaigns. I may have been mistaken?

Yes. Impartiality applies by law to media in referenda. Equal time must be accorded pro and contra arguments.

Otherwise, there is no requirement for impartiality.

The Rape of Lucretia

professore wrote: »

By the way this Louise O'Neill thread is out of control.

As are her 'articles'.

neonsofa

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I assumed political impartiality rules applied across the board and not just in relation to active vote campaigns. I may have been mistaken?

To referenda and elections afaik. But even if it applied accross the board, she's discussing her personal experience as an author in this article, so I'm confused about where political impartiality comes into it?

Outlaw Pete

When her dog was alive, Louise O’Neill used to sit with it in a bright room off her family kitchen. This was one of her ways of relaxing. The quiet was sometimes interrupted by the sound of Sacred Heart Secondary School’s bells, where juniors wear a green jumper, and seniors wear a red one. Green and red. Go and stop.

Yer Da sells Avon

hatrickpatrick wrote:

Didn't we have radio presenters being officially penalised for expressing the merest hint of an opinion on gay marriage during that referendum campaign? I could've sworn I remember a big furore over it at the time.

Nope. RTE voluntarily sent out an internal memo, telling its staff not to mention the referendum in social media posts, in their own free time. This happened not long after they voluntarily handed over a substantial lump of cash to a bunch of irate homophobes. They were (and still are) terrified of upsetting a tiny number of very vocal and litigious die-hard Catholics.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

As are her 'articles'.

Her 'articles'. In the 'Examiner'.

You can't even read them online without signing up, so if you're that easily offended by such innocuous stuff, they're extremely easy to avoid.

I know, I know... this thread is also easy to avoid, but it's very funny watching (presumably) grown men lose their shit over someone who writes harmless articles in what is essentially still a regional paper with a crap website.

freshpopcorn

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I know, I know... this thread is also easy to avoid, but it's very funny watching (presumably) grown men lose their shit over someone who writes harmless articles in what is essentially still a regional paper with a crap website.

I think it's very important to highlight how people feel about her articles and show people that's okay to have views different to hers. If I log onto some social media platforms I'd be led to believe that only a certain type of opinion was socially acceptable.

Yer Da sells Avon

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think it's very important to highlight how people feel about her articles and show people that's okay to have views different to hers.

I get that people disagree with her opinions, but this thread isn't just about people having views that differ from hers. It's hilariously over-the-top, with people trying to claim that she's some kind of 'extremist' and even 'dangerous'.

freshpopcorn wrote:

If I log onto some social media platforms I'd be led to believe that only a certain type of opinion was socially acceptable.

Only if you choose to just follow people who hold those 'certain types of opinion'. The range of views expressed on other social media platforms are a lot more broad than Boards, which seems to be going through a very weird phase lately.

freshpopcorn

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

I get that people disagree with her opinions, but this thread isn't just about people having views that differ from hers. It's hilariously over-the-top, with people trying to claim that she's some kind of 'extremist' and even 'dangerous'.

I would consider some of her views both dangerous end extremist. She believes people are innocent until proven guilty and I'd also question stuff a good few of the things she's said in the past.[/QUOTE]

Hapax Legomenon wrote: »

Only if you choose to just follow people who hold those 'certain types of opinion'. The range of views expressed on other social media platforms are a lot more broad than Boards, which seems to be going through a very weird phase lately.

I don't follow Louise O'Neill on social media but her and other journalists articles pop up in my news feed regularly and it's mainly seems to be these that show up. Anybody who questions things written by her will get blocked. I got clocked because I liked a comment that questioned something she wrote. It wasn't a nasty comment or hateful.

I have my views on this and you have yours and we're not going to agree on it.

CatFromHue

mrsdewinter wrote: »

Thank you! The issues raised by the headline weren't explored at all in the article. And the article covered a lot of ground: eating disorders, sudden fame, online abuse... Was that the best line?

I'm not sure what the best line was, probably the one from her Doctor about her weight when she was getting help about her eating disorder.

I'm not sure why Una put in that line, the one the editor used for the heading, as it was out of place with the rest of her piece.

pumpkin4life

Something I've been dwelling over...

Is it morally right to go off and try and make a big pile of cash off of this nonsense?

Just tell them a couple of pretty lies; that nothing is their fault and there you are now. Profit.

Wibbs

professore wrote: »

Of course men are judged on their appearance and wealth too. Justin Trudeau and Emannuel Macron were elected and even Barack Obama because of their looks. Trump's hair and small hands are forever in the media.

Sure P, but nobody could with a straight face suggest that men are judged and commented upon their appearance to nearly the same extent as women in the public eye are.

Fr_Dougal

How anyone can take her seriously is baffling. She still lives at home with mammy and daddy in her safe space. Probably hasn’t even been weaned yet. An adult baby.

Wibbs

pumpkin4life wrote: »

Something I've been dwelling over...

Is it morally right to go off and try and make a big pile of cash off of this nonsense?

Their editors and media wranglers do P4L. They know it gets clicks and crazier the more clicks. Always follow the money.

It was ever thus in newspapers, but now on the ever more divisive World Wide Wibble it really brings in the bacon. TBH in many ways it's the Ms. O'Neills in that world I have more than a bit of sympathy for. For every reader that agrees, there are many more essentially thinking and speaking; "ah jaysus will ye look at that nutcase, What will she come out with next. You'll never guess what she said yesterday on Twatter/Arsebook". In order to keep their profiles they're almost pushed to reveal more and more of their personal opinions and worse expose their personal demons. It's not so healthy for wider society as IMHO it's media bear baiting and freak show melded into one and it really can't be healthy for those who are the focus of that.

Take the subject of this thread. From my albeit cursory reading of her journey to now, this was someone who wanted to be a writer(cool beans), but struggled with self image and self confidence on a few levels as many folks do, who then goes into the fashion world. An industry so up its own arse it has a glass navel to to see out of. An industry that regularly puts toxic levels of pressure on women within it and those who buy into it. Hardly the environment for someone with self image problems. No wonder she tells us she found herself getting lost to herself and ending up cruising into eating disorder territory.

That her journey out of that was helped by a therapist(which is good) who espoused the more extreme end of current "feminism"(which is not so good and frankly bloody unethical for any therapist to use personal politics in such a way), so it's no wonder she holds such views as she does. If you're drowning and someone throws you a life vest with swastikas on it, you'd be forgiven for thinking hey maybe swastikas and what they stand for* aren't so bad after all.

When on top of that you find a voice given to you by media owners and editors looking for clickbait and enough "friends" and "supporters" online who have also taken the Kool Aid that "like" your opinions, it's again no wonder we end up where we are.

TBH I've revised my attitude towards her and her fellows to a quite large degree. Yes I find most of their opinions either wrongheaded or just plain daft and sometimes downright bloody dangerous, but looking at their environment I can quite understand how they came to have them and how and why they're helped to continue to propagate them. It's alright for the rest of us who get momentarily wound up by the dafter pronouncements and let's face it we get a little bit of a dopamine thrill from the WTF!! , but we can always put the paper/tablet/phone/PC down and look at another tab, other stuff until the next WTF!! moment. They're living it. And have to keep it going living it.





*in before they're an ancient Indian symbol and they were once on Dublin laundry vans you know...

Wibbs

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

How anyone can take her seriously is baffling.

We're not expected to Fr D. We're expected to take her(and similar), enough to be distracted enough to read/click into their witterings.

_Dara_

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think it's very important to highlight how people feel about her articles and show people that's okay to have views different to hers. If I log onto some social media platforms I'd be led to believe that only a certain type of opinion was socially acceptable.

This is really OTT. Like the whole thread. I read a hell of a lot of articles every week and I genuinely had never heard of her before this thread started. And since then, this thread remains the only place she has ever come on my radar. I find it hard to believe that you and others find her writings so stifling.

At this point, it’s all just very repetitious. And is just giving her MORE attention.

Charmeleon

_Dara_ wrote: »

This is really OTT. Like the whole thread. I read a hell of a lot of articles every week and I genuinely had never heard of her before this thread started. And since then, this thread remains the only place she has ever come on my radar. I find it hard to believe that you and others find her writings so stifling.

At this point, it’s all just very repetitious. And is just giving her MORE attention.

Ah come on, watching a paranoid conspiracy theory gaining such a foothold among disaffected feminists of both genders is fascinating to watch. This is one paranoid conspiracy theory for which it is not socially acceptable to laugh at in public though, which makes it all the more compelling to discuss.

Will I Am Not

_Dara_ wrote: »

This is really OTT. Like the whole thread. I read a hell of a lot of articles every week and I genuinely had never heard of her before this thread started. And since then, this thread remains the only place she has ever come on my radar. I find it hard to believe that you and others find her writings so stifling.

At this point, it’s all just very repetitious. And is just giving her MORE attention.

I don’t believe you.

_Dara_ wrote: »

Where would LON be without her dedicated detractors?

_Dara_ wrote: »

Chances are we all have national media journalists we don’t like and don’t agree with. I don’t like some (and LON would be one of them) so I just don’t read their output. Avoid the ones that aren’t your cup of cha. It’s easy peasy. So some people like her and agree with her. So? National figures always have loads of Twitter followers.

Those are your first 2 posts in this thread. Doesn’t sound like someone who just heard of her that day. You are one of the top contributors to this thread and to be quite honest, you kind of come across defensive of her at times.