Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

backspin.

Omackeral wrote: »

Any woman that says “mansplaining” most likely has a loaded or sexist POV anyway.

This Aussie politician handled it beautifully when he was hit with it by a fellow senator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXh5repOWI

Yeah it's a sexist way of saying to men to shut up your opinion doesn't matter because you are a man.

Anyone using that term had a nerve asking others to not be sexist.

_Dara_

Omackeral wrote: »

Any woman that says “mansplaining” most likely has a loaded or sexist POV anyway.

This Aussie politician handled it beautifully when he was hit with it by a fellow senator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOXh5repOWI

Both of them come across as arrogant gobshites there, to be honest.

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

Heard a radio interview in the week where it was revealed that during the Judges summing up, council for Jackson “On instruction” ie told by Jackson to do so, objected to the tone used by the Judge. Apparently, it was suggested that her tone was more sympathetic to the girl. It was dismissed. It further shows the arrogance of the accused.

Hi Maryanne84

It is well within the realms of the concept of a fair trial that an accused can question any perceived lack of impartiality. There is nothing arrogant about having a keen interest in ensuring you don't get sent to prison on the basis of a trial which you believe is being conducted improperly or unfairly -- even if your belief is mistaken. This was a criminal trial, not a polite discussion.

Furthermore, 'On instruction' can also mean that it came from Jackson's solicitor rather than Jackson himself -- did they really specify that Jackson personally requested this? Maybe they did, and fair enough if so, but if you think you aren't getting a fair trial then it is both reasonable and indeed sensible to voice that concern.

facehugger99

Ohmeha wrote: »

As a man I am frightened by all this

Don't treat other people like ****e and you'll be grand.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

Because loads of young kids are looking up to Waterford United player nobody even knows the name of? You really don't understand that it's about their standing in society, not about their profession . Higher on the ladder they are less room for mistake there is.

I think youve given the game away there.

No one too outraged about a black working class convicted rapist. An acquitted middle class white lad on the other hand...
Its irresistible for the perpetually outraged

C__MC

Classy statements by olding and Jackson, hope they make millions

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

Yes they will but maybe those successful men won't send them home crying and mock them next day. Maybe some of them will realise that is not how you treat fellow human being.

A girl left my house one night in tears after we broke up. She cheated, i dumped.
Should i lose my job?

facehugger99

C__MC wrote: »

Classy statements by olding and Jackson, hope they make millions

I'd be happy enough to see them get their careers back on track - as long as it's in France or somewhere else. It might even encourage the victim to take a civil case against them.

clevtrev

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think there is an injunction around that case. As far as I know he was a minor at the time ?

https://theukdatabase.com/2014/11/01/3-kildare-residents-each-receive-suspended-sentences-for-sexual-abuse-of-schoolgirl/

Amirani

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I think youve given the game away there.

No one too outraged about a black working class convicted rapist. An acquitted middle class white lad on the other hand...
Its irresistible for the perpetually outraged

Working class? Based on what exactly?

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

Hilarious how people who think they can say what they like themselves have such a big problem when someone else uses a word they don't like. Channel your inner female and put up with it like we have to do all the time.

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself. It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

FrancieBrady

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself. It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

+1 on this ^
If you make a remark about an individual woman it is immediately conflated into being about all women.

Ridiculous and one of the main reasons why feminists will never create their utopia. Because it is actually unattainable.

Roger Hassenforder

Amirani wrote: »

Working class? Based on what exactly?

Probably should have used "working class" and "middle class" to allow for common misconceptions of the respective sports around here.

MTBD

facehugger99 wrote: »

Don't treat other people like ****e and you'll be grand.

Yeah, how about you just stop being male? It's such a bad thing to be ya know? Women have no role to play in this and can dress/act however they want with no consequences whatsoever. Men are the evil ones and we need to fix them through social engineering and legislation.

Or maybe im talking complete bollocks and these behaviours are instinctive and deeply rooted in our biology like science seems to be suggesting.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-big-questions/201008/sexualized-women-are-seen-objects-studies-find


"The exception was when men high in sexism viewed pictures of sexually dressed women. These pictures did not activate the mPFC for sexist males. This suggests that these men's brains did not perceive these women as fully human.

This study is consistent with the work of University of Padova researchers. They found that when women were dressed sexually (compared to when they weren't), people implicitly associated them more with animals.

Other research has found that merely focusing on a woman's appearance (fully dressed) is enough for people (men and women) to dehumanize a woman. Specifically, we found that people assign female targets less "human nature traits" when focus is on their appearance. These traits are perceived by humans to separate people from machines, automata and objects.

Another study found that these women are seen as less moral (sincere, trusting) and less emotionally warm (likable, warm).

These findings are also consistent with a wide range of work showing that objectified women are perceived as less competent. Interestingly, research even finds that when men view sexualized pictures of women, they subsequently view a female experimenter as doing a worse job. In other words, men "carried over" their views of the sexualized women to another woman, who was not scantily dressed."

wexie

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

Fann Linn

wexie wrote: »

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

Just outta bed. Thats old news.

wexie

Fann Linn wrote: »

Just outta bed. Thats old news.

I only just spotted it, apologies.

Roger Hassenforder

wexie wrote: »

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

"On Friday evening, dozens of people staged a protest outside the Kingspan Stadium in Belfast ahead of Ulster Rugby's match against Ospreys.

The rally was organised by Belfast Feminist Network."

Ah yes, "the people"

facehugger99

wexie wrote: »

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

Hardly surprising.

Great news all the same.

Mrsmum

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself. It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

What if the woman (not to be confused with womankind) needs the thing explained to her. What if she incapable of seeing the point?

Sit back and let her suffer from her delusions or explain it to her?

'Mansplaining' is just another feminist buzzword to avoid the issues.

Omackeral

Mrsmum wrote: »

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

So can women “mansplain”? Why is it necessary to have a word for it with charged connotations? Is there a similar word for speaking to black people in a condescending way, “whitesplaining” perhaps?

Stupid word.

Green Peter

Sad day for democracy and Justice. It seems the higher court in this land are those who shout loudest and longest. Shame on Ulster rugby. I hope they get a chance somewhere else and have success. I think an unfair dismissal case may well be on the cards.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

When i teach leaving cert maths to my 6th yr girls, am i "mansplaining"?

Its a perjorative term, used to discredit and belittle a man in a discussion. Means nothing, only in the eyes of the user, who thinks its a potent weapon to discredit an argument as tbe australian senator found out above.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What if the woman (not to be confused with womankind) needs the thing explained to her. What if she incapable of seeing the point?

Sit back and let her suffer from her delusions or explain it to her?

'Mansplaining' is just another feminist buzzword to avoid the issues.

We're all deluded only yourself Francie. Isn't that right.

washman3

C__MC wrote: »

Classy statements by olding and Jackson, hope they make millions

They might make big dosh in the porn industry in California...

Roger Hassenforder

Ive just realised we might be "mansplaining" mansplaining

blinding

Mrsmum wrote: »

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum, it's OK if you want to keep firing back one-liners and feign ignorance to the substantive point I was making, but that doesn't mean I won't continue to call you out on your lack of consistency.

I explicitly said what angers me is your hypocrisy -- not the word 'mansplaining' itself.  It's your hypocrisy, in being the apparent Chief Executioner for Sexist Remarks Made in Private but then firing around your own sexist terms, that I find irritating.

Mansplaining means " to comment on or explain something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

Mansplaining is feminists running up the White flag.......Its basically saying we ( feminists 0 are talking crap and have to shut up anyone that does not roll over for our nonsense .

Feminists....keep the white Flag flying...........coz your talking nonsense as usual .

Omackeral

Mrsmum wrote: »

We're all deluded only yourself Francie. Isn't that right.

Anything but answer the questions

washman3

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A girl left my house one night in tears after we broke up. She cheated, i dumped.
Should i lose my job?

I don't think anyone really gives a s###e to be honest.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

We're all deluded only yourself Francie. Isn't that right.

Ah yes, conflate conflate conflate Mrsmum.

neonsofa

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What if the woman (not to be confused with womankind) needs the thing explained to her. What if she incapable of seeing the point?

Sit back and let her suffer from her delusions or explain it to her?

'Mansplaining' is just another feminist buzzword to avoid the issues.

I always thought that "mansplaining" was when the woman actually doesn't need it explained but the man patronises the woman and over simplifies things to her regardless. For example a new guy in work was sitting with me and a group of lads at the canteen, couple of the lads started discussing football and new guy starts basically "translating" the conversation for me. Probably a bad example but that's what I thought people referred to as mansplaining more so than just a man explaining something to a woman that she doesn't understand.

Not that I agree with the use of the word btw! Just that I assumed it's only used in cases where it's clear the woman doesn't need the content explained.

I also think women are very guilty of doing the same to men when it comes to things like parenting etc. Even ads do it with cleaning products and the likes. Make out like the man is a hapless idiot that needs domesticating. It's just general patronising on both sides so didn't really need a new word.

C__MC

washman3 wrote: »

They might make big dosh in the porn industry in California...

Absolutely Hilarious,







NOT- now bore off.

Mrsmum

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

When i teach leaving cert maths to my 6th yr girls, am i "mansplaining"?

Its a perjorative term, used to discredit and belittle a man in a discussion. Means nothing, only in the eyes of the user, who thinks its a potent weapon to discredit an argument as tbe australian senator found out above.

I know you guys have to latch on to something today seeing as your other cause is lost. Might as well be mansplaining. Btw when you teach your class as I teach my class, that would be called teaching. Surprised you don't know that.

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

Mansplaining means " when a man comments on or explaisn something to a woman in a condescending, overconfident, and often inaccurate or oversimplified manner".

If the cap fits wear it.

I see you have opted to dig out of the hypocrisy hole rather than climb.

I made an addition to your definition above (in bold) which you appear to have (somewhat conveniently) left out.

What you are essentially saying is that (a) my comments to you have been condescending, overconfident, inaccurate & oversimplified AND (b) are worthy of some further sexist categorisation under the term 'mansplaining' for no other reason than the fact that I am a man talking to a woman.

You were demeaning my opinions in debating with you based on my gender

Now, it doesn't hurt my feelings personally (though it may hurt or offend others of course) and I don't think it is indicative that you hate men or hate their opinions or think that men are simply too stupid to ever empathise with the feelings of women. But perhaps you should do what you are asking others to do and apologise for your remarks, print them off and voluntarily request an employment tribunal be set up to determine whether you should be allowed to keep your job.

SEPT 23 1989

Bank of Ireland have some neck talking morals after the destruction they caused to hundreds of thousands of lives in this country

Omackeral

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know you guys have to latch on to something today seeing as your other cause is lost. Might as well be mansplaining. Btw when you teach your class as I teach my class, that would be called teaching. Surprised you don't know that.

Pathetic.

FrancieBrady

neonsofa wrote: »

I always thought that "mansplaining" was when the woman actually doesn't need it explained but the man patronises the woman and over simplifies things to her regardless. For example a new guy in work was sitting with me and a group of lads at the canteen, couple of the lads started discussing football and new guy starts basically "translating" the conversation for me. Probably a bad example but that's what I thought people referred to as mansplaining more so than just a man explaining something to a woman that she doesn't understand.

Not that I agree with the use of the word btw! Just that I assumed it's only used in cases where it's clear the woman doesn't need the content explained.

Yes that is what it means, and both sexes do it, all the time. But it has now become a feminist buzzword to be thrown out whenever they object to a man telling them they are wrong or misinformed.

i.e. It is bull****.

neonsofa

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes that is what it means, and both sexes do it, all the time. But it has now become a feminist buzzword to be thrown out whenever they object to a man telling them they are wrong or misinformed.

i.e. It is bull****.

Oh completely and I edited my post to add that women are guilty of doing it to men especially when it comes to parenting I find. It happens on both sides.

meeeeh

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Probably should have used "working class" and "middle class" to allow for common misconceptions of the respective sports around here.

Talk about missing the point, Jackson is celebrity that Watford guy is probably on average industrial wage if he's lucky and anonymous. Nobody wants to be him and nobody cares about him. You can bet he won't be playing for Irish national team or any high profile team where he would actually make a bit of career.

Roger Hassenforder

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

a vociferous minority I feel, triggered enough to literally 'mobile'ize themselves to put thumb to screen, via twitter etc, so lets not use opinion polls to establish the mood of the "people in a statistically unreliable poll or two.
most people i know think its outrageous, both their identification in the media, and subsequent treatment after being found innocent.



lets remind ourselves of the conversation that has led to an outraged mob demanding they never play for their country again. Something they have worked towards all their life. Its not more than a hobby, Irish rugby was their life.

on being asked "how was she?" by a friend. Olding replied
"she was very very loose.”
Friend: “Any tips or stories Simon?”
Olding:“Went to Cutters, Ollies, then after-party”
Friend: “Any sluts get f**ked?”
Olding: “Precious secrets.”
11:16am JACOME WhatsApp member: “I said tonight is your lucky night.”
11:17am Olding :“we’re all top sh***ers”
11.17am Olding: “there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas
11.17am Jackson: “There was a lot of spit roast last night.” (thats his contribution in full!)
11.18am Olding “It was like a merry go round at the carnival


two young men after what they thought was a consensual threesome (known as a spitroast" with a willing participant, indulge in some braggadocio. among their friends.
If you honestly think any young male in your life wouldnt say worse in the privacy of their friends, you are seriously deluded.
George Hook was hounded for a public clumsy utterance that a mob found unpalatable. These lads have been hounded for a private utterance.
Its fcuking outrageous.

But Jackson claims the spitroast in question involved no actual sex....bullsh1t Imo....but no sex no rape.

Also he had no further contribution as it all went to the cafe after kingspan tipped him off.

FrancieBrady

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Bank of Ireland have neck talking morals after the destruction they caused to hundreds of thousands of lives in this country

I think the people who have really let the mask slip are those women at the forefront of Rape Crisis Centres north and south.

Their remit is to prevent rape and to educate on the issues surrounding it.

Rather than make this a conversation about personal responsibility for all young people socialising, they have climbed on to a feminist bandwagon and made it about men and male sporting organisations.

A complete dereliction of their responsibilities imo.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

Talk about missing the point, Jackson is celebrity that Watford guy is probably on average industrial wage if he's lucky and anonymous. Nobody wants to be him and nobody cares about him. You can bet he won't be playing for Irish national team or any high profile team where he would actually make a bit of career.

So it is all about optics, nothing to do with human beings at all.
Thanks for being honest.

facehugger99

Power to the People!

People actually united in horror and revulsion at the callus way 2 privileged young men treated a dunk teenager.

Sure, the twitter mob and man-haters will be blamed by the usual bitter suspects, but Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were the architects of their own downfall. The other 2 arseholes don't come out of this smelling of roses either, but as profession sportspeople, PJ and SO had the most to lose and behaved the most despicably.

The decision today was inevitable, I knew they were finished with Ireland but once I head on the grapevine that key sponsors were going to pull out if the correct decision wasn't made by Ulster, they were dead men walking. I pointed this out a number of days ago in the previous thread and was proved spot on.

It's a great day that actually gives me hope for the future for a change.

meeeeh

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A girl left my house one night in tears after we broke up. She cheated, i dumped.
Should i lose my job?

Yes that's it. The same if she was crying because she fell.

Omackeral

meeeeh wrote: »

Talk about missing the point, Jackson is celebrity that Watford guy is probably on average industrial wage if he's lucky and anonymous. Nobody wants to be him and nobody cares about him. You can bet he won't be playing for Irish national team or any high profile team where he would actually make a bit of career.

He’s Nigerian so probably not.

ulster rugby had better have been very consistent in evoking the disrepute clause up to now because otherwise they will be taken to the cleaners

i dunno whether i hope that happens or not.

over the text messages, theres simply no case to be made that isnt social media led witch-hunt frenzy and thats a terrible thing to bow to.

over the sneaky feeling that they got away with behaviour that might or might not have been rape, i can see that. but hard to act on after a not-guilty verdict.

possibly a case of using one excuse to cover the other, which is dodgy.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So it is all about optics, nothing to do with human beings at all.
Thanks for being honest.

Of course it is about optics. It was never about anything else but optics. If he was a call centre worker he'd be back next Monday, if he was a manager of that company he would be probably told to resign by the share holders. Demands of prominent job are different.

holyhead

I think the text messages allied to the allegation of rape did for them. A nice sincere respectful person could be accused of rape but is unlikely to send/share text messages of that ilk to their friends.

waffleman

neonsofa wrote: »

I always thought that "mansplaining" was when the woman actually doesn't need it explained but the man patronises the woman and over simplifies things to her regardless. For example a new guy in work was sitting with me and a group of lads at the canteen, couple of the lads started discussing football and new guy starts basically "translating" the conversation for me. Probably a bad example but that's what I thought people referred to as mansplaining more so than just a man explaining something to a woman that she doesn't understand.

Explaining somethin to a person that he/she already understands is not gender specific. Why not just say you are already aware of that - no need to explain.

Anyone who accuses someone of being sexist by using a sexist term themselves is a dunce to begin with.