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

LLMMLL

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

When you block someone on Twitter they can no longer @ you and so therefore you can no longer adequately take part in a discussion with them. When you ban someone on Facebook they can no longer comment in a discussion taking place on your page. LON (and her ilk) do this regularly. As I said, if someone is being abusive, fair enough, but if all they are doing is trying to take part in a conversation, and you remove them simply because their views aren't in agreement with yours, then that very much is an attempt to silence your critics and carve out little online echo chambers.

But silencing your critics implies they can't be heard. They clearly can be heard. Whether she wants to engage with them or not is another thing. I mean we can redefine concepts to make her sound way worse than she is but it's a little dishonest.

Omackeral

LLMMLL wrote: »

But silencing your critics implies they can't be heard. They clearly can be heard. Whether she wants to engage with them or not is another thing. I mean we can redefine concepts to make her sound way worse than she is but it's a little dishonest.

Indeed. What you've described there is basically the equivalent of her putting her fingers in her ears and going ''la la la la la I can't hear you''.

um7y1h83ge06nx

In many ways I don't blame her as much as I blame the people that employ her and promote her.

It's very clear that she has a lot in her past which has impacted her view of the world. I don't think most of it had anything to do with men but nevertheless that's the group she seems to feel most wronged by.

The difference is that most people like her don't get the opportunity of platforms like newspapers etc.

RabbleRouser2k

Garrett Incalculable Schoolgirl wrote: »

In many ways I don't blame her as much as I blame the people that employ her and promote her.

It's very clear that she has a lot in her past which has impacted her view of the world. I don't think most of it had anything to do with men but nevertheless that's the group she seems to feel most wronged by.

The difference is that most people like her don't get the opportunity of platforms like newspapers etc.

I believe some amount of blame needs to be attributed to her psychologist, the one who was 'feminist'-she seemed to blame O'Neill's problems on 'men'.

LON had/ has an eating disorder-these things spring up for many complicated and complex reasons (eating disorders I mean). But often 'campaigners' blame it on images and coverage in the media.

It's like blaming OCD on 'order/disorder' or depression on people being happy. It's far more complicated than that.

jpm4

This is the thread that keeps on giving....for all the people outraged about her being a "national platform to vent her spleen" or whatever - we are talking about the Examiner here right? I didn't even think this was widely read outside of Cork or Munster, and could hardly be considered the high watermark of journalism anyways.

py2006

jpm4 wrote: »

This is the thread that keeps on giving....for all the people outraged about her being a "national platform to vent her spleen" or whatever - we are talking about the Examiner here right? I didn't even think this was widely read outside of Cork or Munster, and could hardly be considered the high watermark of journalism anyways.

Nope

EDIT: Wait, thats the other one...

The_Kew_Tour

py2006 wrote: »

Nope

EDIT: Wait, thats the other one...

I stopped reading once I saw who wrote that.

LLMMLL

Garrett Incalculable Schoolgirl wrote: »

In many ways I don't blame her as much as I blame the people that employ her and promote her.

It's very clear that she has a lot in her past which has impacted her view of the world. I don't think most of it had anything to do with men but nevertheless that's the group she seems to feel most wronged by.

The difference is that most people like her don't get the opportunity of platforms like newspapers etc.

Either do most people like David Quinn, Ian Doherty etc. Pick any columnist and there's thousands of people like them who don't have a column. I doubt that bothers you as much though.

_Dara_

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Sure you're undermining your own argument by posting a picture of Kevin Myers as there were threads on Boards about him for years, lambasting him almost every time he opened his mouth..... compared to how he was spoken about on Boards over the years, Louise is getting the kid gloves.

There’ll be threads relating to him every so often, sure. But they tend to peter out after a few days or maybe a week. He’d never inspire a megathread.

the_pen_turner

any examples of what he said just for comarison

sydthebeat

_Dara_ wrote: »

There’ll be threads relating to him every so often, sure. But they tend to peter out after a few days or maybe a week. He’d never inspire a megathread.

She's just published a book and is on a promotional tour, and thus getting lots of media attention.
Of course this thread is going to truck on....

garbo speaks

‘The hardest place to maintain my feminism is in a relationship with a straight man’ - she actually wrote those words. Welcome to 2018.

_Dara_

sydthebeat wrote: »

She's just published a book and is on a promotional tour, and thus getting lots of media attention.
Of course this thread is going to truck on....

Yeah, there were megathreads on her when she didn’t have books out. And how many other authors on promotional tours inspire megathreads?

deaddonkey15

_Dara_ wrote: »

Yeah, there were megathreads on her when she didn’t have books out. And how many other authors on promotional tours inspire megathreads?

Just unfollow it if it's a problem for you.

Wibbs

_Dara_ wrote: »

There’ll be threads relating to him every so often, sure. But they tend to peter out after a few days or maybe a week. He’d never inspire a megathread.

To be fair there's a megathread that's nearly as long(and started more recently) on that Peterson guy and he's another social commentator with a book/tour to hawk, only (in simplistic terms) on the "other side". He's come in for a fair chunk of criticism too. Has he been accused of being nuts? Not that I recall, though again to be fair his output doesn't descend to the level of frankly hysterical/histrionic that LO'N's has at times. Primal screams and the like. So such comments are more likely to attract questions about who comes out with this kinda guff. Understandably so.

I suppose that's a difference in style of commentary too. His would be the more studied and measured and external for want of a better word. He's the observer. He's an academic though. Hers - and she's not alone in this trend, it's a very popular trend - is more about the personal exposition, feelings and internal, again for the want of a better word. She's the observed. She's an author so naturally that tends to favour the internal. Both appeal to different audiences*. Personally I tend to prefer the former approach. The latter I find doesn't inform beyond the personal and TBH a tad unseemly in an adult. Especially when it is used by editors and media hawkers as a way to garner clicks.

I ponder a thought experiment: Imagine if he were the psychologist that she sought and found help from. I'd bet she'd see the world more through his politic than how she does now. TBH it still beggars my belief that her shrink viewed and applied psychological therapy through the prism of third wave feminism. I'd certainly not like to be a male patient of hers. Can you imagine.

garbo speaks wrote:

‘The hardest place to maintain my feminism is in a relationship with a straight man’ - she actually wrote those words. Welcome to 2018.

Actually I would find that an interesting question she posed. If one takes a positional worldview that sees one section of society as essentially the "enemy", how does one navigate an intimate relationship with someone from that section of society? One could make the comparison - and it's not as wild as it first may seem** - that a racist of any hue would find it hard to maintain that worldview in a relationship with someone from a different race.


* it has a long history in art. A popular example might be the output of Lennon and McCartney. Lennon is the observed. Almost always writes about himself, even when he appears to be writing about others. McCartney is the observer, rarely writes about himself. EG it can be seen in one single: Penny Lane/Strawberry fields forever. Though both are odes to youth and nostalgia, Strawberry is all about Lennon, his childhood, his sense of otherness in that youth. Penny lane is McCartney observing and commenting on all the characters on the street in the title.

**with both isms the object of their concern is to be feared, is to be blamed for all society's ills, is to be mistrusted, is to be seen as and portrayed as inferior and the believers of the ism are never responsible. As I say, not such a wild comparison.

_Dara_

deaddonkey15 wrote: »

Just unfollow it if it's a problem for you.

Revolutionary. How did you come up with that?

It’s a forum. What do people have difficulty with here? The ‘if you don’t like something, don’t comment.” thing is asinine anywhere, but nowhere moreso than on a forum where people post opinions using their hands and read other opinions with their eyeballs.

Oh and I don’t follow any thread on boards. That facility is switched off on my account. I just dip in as I please.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

Revolutionary. How did you come up with that?

And yet you seem incapable of doing it?

_Dara_

Deleted User wrote: »

And yet you seem incapable of doing it?

I don’t have a list of threads I follow. The follow thing is disabled on my account. I just dip in whenever I want, this being a, you know, forum and all, where people discuss things.

The sulkiness of people on this thread to any dissenting voice is amusing though.

Sweetemotion

_Dara_ wrote: »

The sulkiness of people on this thread to any dissenting voice is amusing though.

Aren't you the biggest contributor to this thread?


Seriously though why do you come out with comments like that about the people on this thread. What's your plan? It seems like you want the thread closed.

_Dara_

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Aren't you the biggest contributor to this thread?


Seriously though why do you come out with comments like that about the people on this thread. What's your plan? It seems like you want the thread closed.

Not at all. I think this thread veers toward weird and I'll continue to say so. But if people want to keep it going, grand. Nothing I want to do about that or can do about that. I (and others) just think it's an odd thread. Maybe if you and others don't want people commenting on it like, take it a private forum?

Sweetemotion

_Dara_ wrote: »

Not at all. I think this thread veers toward weird and I'll continue to say so. But if people want to keep it going, grand. Nothing I want to do about that or can do about that. I (and others) just think it's an odd thread. Maybe if you and others don't want people commenting on it like, take it a private forum?

But there are threads about a lot of people on boards and posters who criticise their every move. Do go into there also and make smart comments about the posters?

I have only seen you do it in this thread. What's the difference. I find that odd.

kumate_champ07

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair there's a megathread that's nearly as long(and started more recently) on that Peterson guy and he's another social commentator with a book/tour to hawk, only (in simplistic terms) on the "other side". He's come in for a fair chunk of criticism too. Has he been accused of being nuts? Not that I recall, though again to be fair his output doesn't descend to the level of frankly hysterical/histrionic that LO'N's has at times. Primal screams and the like. So such comments are more likely to attract questions about who comes out with this kinda guff. Understandably so.

I suppose that's a difference in style of commentary too. His would be the more studied and measured and external for want of a better word. He's the observer. He's an academic though. Hers - and she's not alone in this trend, it's a very popular trend - is more about the personal exposition, feelings and internal, again for the want of a better word. She's the observed. She's an author so naturally that tends to favour the internal. Both appeal to different audiences*. Personally I tend to prefer the former approach. The latter I find doesn't inform beyond the personal and TBH a tad unseemly in an adult. Especially when it is used by editors and media hawkers as a way to garner clicks.

I ponder a thought experiment: Imagine if he were the psychologist that she sought and found help from. I'd bet she'd see the world more through his politic than how she does now. TBH it still beggars my belief that her shrink viewed and applied psychological therapy through the prism of third wave feminism. I'd certainly not like to be a male patient of hers. Can you imagine.

Actually I would find that an interesting question she posed. If one takes a positional worldview that sees one section of society as essentially the "enemy", how does one navigate an intimate relationship with someone from that section of society? One could make the comparison - and it's not as wild as it first may seem** - that a racist of any hue would find it hard to maintain that worldview in a relationship with someone from a different race.


* it has a long history in art. A popular example might be the output of Lennon and McCartney. Lennon is the observed. Almost always writes about himself, even when he appears to be writing about others. McCartney is the observer, rarely writes about himself. EG it can be seen in one single: Penny Lane/Strawberry fields forever. Though both are odes to youth and nostalgia, Strawberry is all about Lennon, his childhood, his sense of otherness in that youth. Penny lane is McCartney observing and commenting on all the characters on the street in the title.

**with both isms the object of their concern is to be feared, is to be blamed for all society's ills, is to be mistrusted, is to be seen as and portrayed as inferior and the believers of the ism are never responsible. As I say, not such a wild comparison.

perhaps thats because hes not really Paul..

kumate_champ07

if she admits that feminism is not compatible with a straight man, is that an indication that her feminism is not about finding a balance, its about tilting society in favour of females, with the justification being that men had it tilted in their favour up till now?

kumate_champ07

kumate_champ07 wrote: »

if she admits that feminism is not compatible with a straight man, is that an indication that her feminism is not about finding a balance, its about tilting society in favour of females, with the justification being that men had it tilted in their favour up till now?

Dont complicate matters..

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

I don’t have a list of threads I follow. The follow thing is disabled on my account. I just dip in whenever I want, this being a, you know, forum and all, where people discuss things.

The sulkiness of people on this thread to any dissenting voice is amusing though.

Oh ffs do me a favour! :rolleyes:
There hasnt been one valid counter argument in defence of O'Neill on this thread. Not one. The subtotal of your contributions is to ask why there is a thread about her?

If you had read the posts rather than diving in all pius you might have deducted that people are objecting to the fact that she is continuously accusing all men of being rapists or contributing to a rape culture without having any substance or valid examples to back up her arguments.

People understandably take exception not only to this, but the insane world of media where this unhinged woman is given a weekly platform to make such bizarre statements and is held as some form of beacon for womanhood or feminism.

Personally, i dont agree with some of the personal remarks about her looks, etc, but i take great exception to the fact an author and journalist accusing me and all other men, of being a rapist without basis or fact. The national media should be held to account also. They have an obligation to print news in a responsible fashion.

What exactly are you on here to argue about?

kumate_champ07

_Dara_ wrote: »

Not at all. I think this thread veers toward weird and I'll continue to say so. But if people want to keep it going, grand. Nothing I want to do about that or can do about that. I (and others) just think it's an odd thread. Maybe if you and others don't want people commenting on it like, take it a private forum?

you have a problem with civil logical discourse?

_Dara_

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh ffs do me a favour! :rolleyes:
There hasnt been one valid counter argument in defence of O'Neill on this thread. Not one. The subtotal of your contributions is to ask why there is a thread about her?

If you had read the posts rather than diving in all pius you might have deducted that people are objecting to the fact that she is continuously accusing all men of being rapists or contributing to a rape culture without having any substance or valid examples to back up her arguments.

People understandably take exception not only to this, but the insane world of media where this unhinged woman is given a weekly platform to make such bizarre statements and is held as some form of beacon for womanhood or feminism.

Personally, i dont agree with some of the personal remarks about her looks, etc, but i take great exception to the fact an author and journalist accusing me and all other men, of being a rapist without basis or fact. The national media should be held to account also. They have an obligation to print news in a responsible fashion.

What exactly are you on here to argue about?

I’d say people not defending LON is down to them... not wanting to defend her. I would have thought that was fairly obvious?

A few of us who contribute to this thread find some of the people on this obsessive about her. I would also have thought that was fairly obvious. Because we explicitly state that.

What are you having difficulty with?

py2006

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’d say people not defending LON is down to them... not wanting to defend her. I would have thought that was fairly obvious?

A few of us who contribute to this thread find some of the people on this obsessive about her. I would also have thought that was fairly obvious. Because we explicitly state that.

What are you having difficulty with?

Sounds me more like sistas sticking up for sistas cause you know women are victims and can only be victims. How dare any men criticise a woman.

_Dara_

_Dara_ wrote: »

I’d say people not defending LON is down to them... not wanting to defend her. I would have thought that was fairly obvious?

A few of us who contribute to this thread find some of the people on this obsessive about her. I would also have thought that was fairly obvious. Because we explicitly state that.

What are you having difficulty with?

How can you tell that people are 'obsessing' with her? And in fairness what do you care in any such case? Your having difficulty with the unfollow button so i wouldnt be too patronising toward anyone if i were you.

Perhaps the real objection here is that Louise represents a wider problem of modern skewed mass media coverage not just in Ireland, but worldwide, where these stupid leftist idiots and their flawed morals seem to be hand picked by the media tycoons to represent a different reality then what is actually happening on the ground and carry out government propaganda.

Silentcorner

I can appreciate that there are elements of the feminist movement that exposes really deep rooted social issues that affect society that are caused by the utter domination of the male thought process and male group think....like Church and State amongst others....it also prides itself in identifying toxic group think in male dominated professions....some with justification, some with none...

However, if fails to even indulge in the possibility of toxic group think within itself...ie If you are for equality then you must be a feminist, which is utter nonsense...

A lot of women, who identify as feminist, are raising children of their own, boys and girls, they are happy or are completely indifferent to the inequality their boys are going to be exposed in the education system, which for generations has favoured the female gender, giving girls and young women a leg up on their male counterparts in a VITAL part of their lives....this is put down to the fact that "girls are smarter than boys" or "girls are more mature than boys"....now just imagine if that were reversed....

The problem I have with LON, is that, she is so feeble minded, she needs the cause of feminist (as do women like her) more than most...because the alternative would be to look deeper in oneself for deeper underlying issues that require a complete commitment to self awareness that is beyond her capabilities...

She has a platform because media has been steadily abandoning standards for a long time now...she is a result of that...not progression...

For example, this week, an Irish newspaper published an article about Rugby WAGs (this is targeted at a female audience)...I don't need to mention how insensitive that it is at this particular time....where were the feminists then...checking out the style of those young ladies no doubt...