NationStates

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:00 pm**

In the discussion of both a father and a mother being needed at home:

They are not necessarily needed, either the man or the woman. What's more important is the stability of the family unit and not how close to a perfect male-female dichotomy is the family unit.

Sometimes, having either parent is detrimental to a child. An abusive father is just as bad as an abusive mother. A stable parent who can bear the brunt of the upbringing of a child is as good as one good parent and one abusive parent.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 pm**

Costa Fierro wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:Did you want to bet against me?

Considering you've already said in 20 years pornography will be illegal, I doubt much of what you predict is going to come true.

Id put 1K USD on that.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:03 pm**

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:In the discussion of both a father and a mother being needed at home:

They are not necessarily needed, either the man or the woman. What's more important is the stability of the family unit and not how close to a perfect male-female dichotomy is the family unit.

Sometimes, having either parent is detrimental to a child. An abusive father is just as bad as an abusive mother. A stable parent who can bear the brunt of the upbringing of a child is as good as one good parent and one abusive parent.

Thank you for being fair and highlighting the truth.
Then there's such "little" thing about fathers being statistically way more abusive than mothers...

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:10 pm**

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:In the discussion of both a father and a mother being needed at home:

They are not necessarily needed, either the man or the woman. What's more important is the stability of the family unit and not how close to a perfect male-female dichotomy is the family unit.

Sometimes, having either parent is detrimental to a child. An abusive father is just as bad as an abusive mother. A stable parent who can bear the brunt of the upbringing of a child is as good as one good parent and one abusive parent.

This is absolutely true. It's IDEAL though that a child has two stable parents in the home, both a mother and a father. Sure, it's rare these days, but it's usually the best environment for a child to have two stable parents in the home.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:14 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:First, some thoughts:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... t-journals

Excerpt:
Sex in hookup culture isn’t just casual, it’s aggressively slapdash, excluding not just love, but also fondness and sometimes even basic courtesy.

Hookup culture prevails, even though it serves only a minority of students, because cultures don’t reflect what is, but a specific group’s vision of what should be. The students who are most likely to qualify as enthusiasts are also more likely than other kinds of students to be affluent, able-bodied, white, conventionally attractive, heterosexual and male. These students know – whether consciously or not – that they can afford to take risks, protected by everything from social status to their parents’ pocketbooks.

Students who don’t carry these privileges, especially when they are disadvantaged in many different ways at once, are often pushed or pulled out of hooking up. One of my African American students, Jaslene, stated bluntly that hooking up isn’t “for black people”, referring specifically to a white standard of beauty for women that disadvantaged women like her in the erotic marketplace. She felt pushed out. Others pulled away. “Some of us with serious financial aid and grants,” said one of my students with an athletic scholarship, “tend to avoid high-risk situations”.

Hookup culture, then, isn’t what the majority of students want, it’s the privileging of the sexual lifestyle most strongly endorsed by those with the most power on campus, the same people we see privileged in every other part of American life.

Emphasis mine.

Also, the same author, Lisa Wade, a professor of sociology at Occidental College (and also author of the upcoming book about such issue "American Hookup: The New Culture of Sex on Campus")
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014 ... exism.html

Heterosexuality in the U.S. is gendered: women are expected to attract, men are supposed to be attracted. Men want, women want to be wanted. Metaphorically, this is a predator/prey type relationship. Women are subject to the hunt whether they like it or not, so men’s attention can be pleasing, annoying, or frightening. It all depends.

So, according author Lisa Wade, the widespread problem of violence against women through rape within campuses mainly spread from a strong sense of entitlement and unlimited power among affluent, heterosexual, white males, and that have strong ties with homophobia, too. Such sense of entitlement and unlimited power can (and often do) led to a predatory behavior.
Personally I fully agree with her idea, and I also think that the implementation of "yes-means-yes" policies, taking away from such dominant class a part of their perceived power, by requiring them to submit requests for each step they want to take, and requiring them to wait for a clear affirmative answer from the woman, can be part of the solution to the problem, though still not a complete, full, solution. In other words, though I'm pretty sure that "yes-means-yes" policies will prove to be very effective, I'm not sure that such policies will completely solve the issue, and I'm not sure about how could be a further step meant to further lower the huge number of sexual assualts and, more generally, violence against women with US campuses.

What do you think NSGs?
Is heterosexual hook up culture fuelling rapes on campuses?
Whatever you think it's so, or not, what could be, according you, the best solution to widespread rapes within campuses?

On this particular OP:

While I agree that the entire power dynamic rests within the powerful people who are less prone to go to jail (for reference to the argument, I am of the idea that, in Western society, money buys you freedom, and as such, people with more money are less prone to be jailed or be found guilty of a sexual crime, or just about any crime, really, or have a harsh conviction even if found guilty, because they can afford a good attorney who will defend their case) I would say that the main problem is the large degree of protection people can buy from the consequences of their actions. Further, this is compounded by the fact that people seem to believe that just following the law or just creating more laws to narrow down the exemptions is going to help out.

I had a discussion the other day about rape culture with a friend, and the one conclusion I arrived to was that the law, as much as it attempts to protect everyone equally, it doesn't take much effort to follow the law. Following the law merely makes you a functional person in society. It generally takes to be brought up with good values beyond the law that can be applied so that things like non-consensual sex doesn't happen because yes, I do realize that, while rape is non-consensual sex, not all non-consensual sex falls within the criminal category of rape. And that is a particular issue that, as you have noticed (and I am glad you made the point) cannot be solved alone by "yes-means-yes" policy.

However, it can be solved by having better moral education in schools. Teachers are our moral guides for most of our schooling, so in that regard, I believe pedagogy should take a deeper focus at respecting one another, and for teachers to take a new role, which is that of an arbiter and judge within the classroom. Not in the manner of legal judge, but as an extension of what society expects of people how to behave. I personally believe that, if children can be taught how to respect another person's personal space, and to ask before doing anything with the other person, whether it is to play with their toys, or to simply ask if they need help or anything before doing something to them, and that if they ask as to how they can help, they should be sure they can handle the situation, it'll go a long way to normalize consent.

There's several problems in how children are raised and how this shows up in adult behavior, but I think those are some of the spots I can sympathize and even understand where children get their ideas about consent from.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:15 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:In the discussion of both a father and a mother being needed at home:

They are not necessarily needed, either the man or the woman. What's more important is the stability of the family unit and not how close to a perfect male-female dichotomy is the family unit.

Sometimes, having either parent is detrimental to a child. An abusive father is just as bad as an abusive mother. A stable parent who can bear the brunt of the upbringing of a child is as good as one good parent and one abusive parent.

Thank you for being fair and highlighting the truth.
Then there's such "little" thing about fathers being statistically way more abusive than mothers...

Alright, show us the statistics that show that fathers are way more abusive. As you'd say if somebody targeted women, stereotypes and person opinion doesn't make it true.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:19 pm**

Luminesa wrote:
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:In the discussion of both a father and a mother being needed at home:

They are not necessarily needed, either the man or the woman. What's more important is the stability of the family unit and not how close to a perfect male-female dichotomy is the family unit.

Sometimes, having either parent is detrimental to a child. An abusive father is just as bad as an abusive mother. A stable parent who can bear the brunt of the upbringing of a child is as good as one good parent and one abusive parent.

This is absolutely true. It's IDEAL though that a child has two stable parents in the home, both a mother and a father. Sure, it's rare these days, but it's usually the best environment for a child to have two stable parents in the home.

Sure it is ideal, in the same way that it'd be ideal if we all had a Ferrari convertible.

However, that is not the world we live in, and so we must make concessions that the stability of the home is far more important than an ideal male-female couple heading the household.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:21 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Ebliania wrote:When I think about it, she's just as bad as the racists. "Obsolete" just sounds like a white supremacist talking about blacks.

You still don't get the facts, more entitlement.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... en/308135/

I am positive you're seriously misusing the term "entitled".

Because it can be a legitimate criticism, and a genuine societal issue. You're saying someone is entitled because they disagree with you. Not because their social stature, experience or position otherwise is a privileged position, but because they disagree.
Maybe it's shorthand. But it looks dire when misused in this way.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:21 pm**

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Luminesa wrote:This is absolutely true. It's IDEAL though that a child has two stable parents in the home, both a mother and a father. Sure, it's rare these days, but it's usually the best environment for a child to have two stable parents in the home.

Sure it is ideal, in the same way that it'd be ideal if we all had a Ferrari convertible.

However, that is not the world we live in, and so we must make concessions that the stability of the home is far more important than an ideal male-female couple heading the household.

Ehhhh, not sure if a sports car is the most fuel-efficient, though. Then again, I don't know much about cars...lol.

Anyway, true. The goal is to have a stable home, and many single parents have indeed successfully managed to raise children to become healthy and moral adults. I simply don't agree with the idea that men should be pushed out of the home, as it seems Chess is implying. If I'm wrong, Chess, please correct me.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:25 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Costa Fierro wrote:
He's not "famous". He's some obscure Frenchman who no one has ever heard of until you brought him up.

How about you not call men obsolete? Would you be incensed if men invented an artificial womb and then said that all women were useless?

It isn't men who are developing the artificial womb, it's mainly women, it'll took at least 30, even 40 years before being fully reliable.
I bet its use it'll be reserved to women.
Did you want to bet against me?

I'll take that bet. Whats the stakes?

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:25 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:You're making trying to convince people that feminism is worth anything absurdly difficult, Chess.

There's a reason why Gauthier is so convinced in his theory.

I'm not so convinced, although I totally get his argument. See - this kind of insanely outrageous sexism is not all that uncommon on the internet from people who claim to be feminist.

Whether they are or not... Gauthier and I have a different opinion. Let's just say it's Poe's law in action.

We've had much weirder Poes on NSG, I'll tell you that much.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:32 pm**

Impireacht wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:

Thank you for being fair and highlighting the truth.
Then there's such "little" thing about fathers being statistically way more abusive than mothers...

Alright, show us the statistics that show that fathers are way more abusive. As you'd say if somebody targeted women, stereotypes and person opinion doesn't make it true.

Depending on the country, she is absolutely right though.

Latin American fathers are, as a statistical majority, far more abusive than mothers for instance. In particular sexual abuse towards daughters. This report from Al-Jazeera about Nicaragua is but one of many examples of the statistics found with child abuse in Latin America:

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/featur ... 65908.html

Now, does this mean all Latin American parents are abusive? No. But it is clear that it is a problem. In the U.S., we also have a large statistic of male perpetrators, as high as 41.8 percent if we count cases where both father and mother acted together in the abuse of a child (Table 3-10):

http://americanspcc.org/wp-content/uplo ... atment.pdf

Although, to your credit, in the United States, abuse committed by fathers acting alone tend to be much less than those of mothers acting alone by nearly a 2-1 ratio, which surprises me somewhat. I couldn't tell you about Europe, or for that matter, where Chess is from given I don't know much about the statistics and family culture down there.

However, that really wasn't my original point. My original point had nothing to do with how statistically likely it is to be abused by either parent, but that household stability, harmony, whatever you wanna call it is far more important than both parents being present.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:37 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:In the discussion of both a father and a mother being needed at home:

They are not necessarily needed, either the man or the woman. What's more important is the stability of the family unit and not how close to a perfect male-female dichotomy is the family unit.

Sometimes, having either parent is detrimental to a child. An abusive father is just as bad as an abusive mother. A stable parent who can bear the brunt of the upbringing of a child is as good as one good parent and one abusive parent.

Thank you for being fair and highlighting the truth.
Then there's such "little" thing about fathers being statistically way more abusive than mothers...

You're welcome.

Although true, like I said above, the statistical likelihood of men being more abusive than mothers is irrelevant to the point I was making. I see where you are coming from though and I'm inclined to agree as an aggregate of child abuse depending on the country/countries which we speak of in a discussion about child abuse trends; I'd like to point out that this really doesn't diminish the impact of abusive mothers upon their children in any way though.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:37 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:In the discussion of both a father and a mother being needed at home:

They are not necessarily needed, either the man or the woman. What's more important is the stability of the family unit and not how close to a perfect male-female dichotomy is the family unit.

Sometimes, having either parent is detrimental to a child. An abusive father is just as bad as an abusive mother. A stable parent who can bear the brunt of the upbringing of a child is as good as one good parent and one abusive parent.

Thank you for being fair and highlighting the truth.
Then there's such "little" thing about fathers being statistically way more abusive than mothers...

In New Zealand at least, this isn't the case.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:56 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful

You seem to be defining usefullness by one's sex.

Odd.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:00 pm**

Esternial wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful

You seem to be defining usefullness by one's sex.

Odd.

*Cough*sexism *Cough*

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:23 pm**

You know, I agree with your thesis, but this is just too good.

Chessmistress wrote:You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.

Is it the kind of comedy when a self-proclaimed justice fanatic calls men "useless" right out of the womb?

It explains that is absolutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.

Name nine mammals in which that is true and I may consider Ms. Meillaussoux semi-credible.

But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.

That isn't anything new. I think said education should be extended to females as well. Inefficiency and frivolity knows no gender boundaries.

It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.

If what you say is true about their uselessness (which it isn't) then men have proved their usefulness by establishing this "patriarchy". So your argument is invalidated by your own claims. As you said, might as well:

Chessmistress wrote:learn it the hard way.

Sometimes I think explaining things it's a waste of time, really.

I love this, so much so that is would be a "waste of time, really" to explain why.

You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful

If that goes for him, someone whose sperm adds genetic variation to the gene pool, then it goes for you.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:32 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Ebliania wrote:What, is it because he was a bit too young to meet your strict standards?

*yawn*
You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
I think you'll learn it the hard way.
However, for those who are able to read French, here there's an interesting paper by a very famous anthropologist:
http://graduateinstitute.ch/files/live/ ... eillas.pdf
Such paper was presented on March, 15, 2000 in France, at the convention of the organization for Women's Development (one of the most important Women's organizations in France, actually fighting against FGM and surrogacy).
It explains that is absolutely true that 90% males are not needed in practically all mammals, including humans.
But it explains, and that's much more important, that the right path to follow isn't a reduction of the percentage of men, but through education: men should understand that they have to be useful and not harmful to the society, because the majority of women doesn't wish such reduction and we just only wish being treated as human beings.
It also explains a possible (and very likely) reason for patriarchy: according such anthropologist, the men, realizing the fact that most them are biologically useless for the perpetuation of the species in a natural setting, have flipped the things in their favor, through patriarchy that was meant for controlling the women.
Such anthropologist isn't an anonymous blogger, he was a very famous and respected French anthropologist
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Meillassoux

Sometimes I think expalining things it's a waste of time, really.

You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful

Absolutely disgusting and appalling and worthy of a "What in the FUCK did I just read?!?!?!"
Reducing roughly half of the world population to nothing more than obsolete and worthless? I don't honestly know what's worse the blatant sexism or the heavy dripping of bigotry.
If one dipshit anthropologist says it, it must be true huh? fuck that.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:36 pm**

Chessmistress wrote:
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:In the discussion of both a father and a mother being needed at home:

They are not necessarily needed, either the man or the woman. What's more important is the stability of the family unit and not how close to a perfect male-female dichotomy is the family unit.

Sometimes, having either parent is detrimental to a child. An abusive father is just as bad as an abusive mother. A stable parent who can bear the brunt of the upbringing of a child is as good as one good parent and one abusive parent.

Thank you for being fair and highlighting the truth.
Then there's such "little" thing about fathers being statistically way more abusive than mothers...

This is a question of interpretation.

Mothers commit a majority of child abuse compared with fathers (abuse by parents), but there's also unequal access.

There's also the factor that mothers disproportionately abuse boys, similar to how fathers disproportionately abuse girls, but we have a sexist societal narrative that boys can't be victims and women can't be abusers, which probably depresses the numbers significantly compared with reality.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:42 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Chessmistress wrote:

Thank you for being fair and highlighting the truth.
Then there's such "little" thing about fathers being statistically way more abusive than mothers...

This is a question of interpretation.

Mothers commit a majority of child abuse compared with fathers (abuse by parents), but there's also unequal access.

There's also the factor that mothers disproportionately abuse boys, similar to how fathers disproportionately abuse girls, but we have a sexist societal narrative that boys can't be victims and women can't be abusers, which probably depresses the numbers significantly compared with reality.

I think the other problem with the "abuse" narrative, and this is something I am using your post as an example of, is this narrative that abuse HAS to be sexual abuse by default.

There's many ways a child is abused by their parents, not just sexual. But sexual is that which people are more drawn to because it is the most egregious. Neglect and emotional abuse are forms of abuse which is far more insidious than sexual abuse, and far more damaging because they are long-term forms of abuse without any immediate recourses to the law or society at large, and yet people don't think of it as abuse because the parent is the ultimate authority at home.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:50 pm**

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Galloism wrote:This is a question of interpretation.

Mothers commit a majority of child abuse compared with fathers (abuse by parents), but there's also unequal access.

There's also the factor that mothers disproportionately abuse boys, similar to how fathers disproportionately abuse girls, but we have a sexist societal narrative that boys can't be victims and women can't be abusers, which probably depresses the numbers significantly compared with reality.

I think the other problem with the "abuse" narrative, and this is something I am using your post as an example of, is this narrative that abuse HAS to be sexual abuse by default.

There's many ways a child is abused by their parents, not just sexual. But sexual is that which people are more drawn to because it is the most egregious. Neglect and emotional abuse are forms of abuse which is far more insidious than sexual abuse, and far more damaging because they are long-term forms of abuse without any immediate recourses to the law or society at large, and yet people don't think of it as abuse because the parent is the ultimate authority at home.

I'm pretty sure that I read a study that, even in nonsexual abuse, it's disproportionately cross-gender (I.E., the abuser and the abused are typically of opposite gender).

When I get up tomorrow I can try to dig for that if you want me to.

Edit: And yes, nonsexual abuse is also quite serious.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:53 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
I think the other problem with the "abuse" narrative, and this is something I am using your post as an example of, is this narrative that abuse HAS to be sexual abuse by default.

There's many ways a child is abused by their parents, not just sexual. But sexual is that which people are more drawn to because it is the most egregious. Neglect and emotional abuse are forms of abuse which is far more insidious than sexual abuse, and far more damaging because they are long-term forms of abuse without any immediate recourses to the law or society at large, and yet people don't think of it as abuse because the parent is the ultimate authority at home.

I'm pretty sure that I read a study that, even in nonsexual abuse, it's disproportionately cross-gender (I.E., the abuser and the abused are typically of opposite gender).

When I get up tomorrow I can try to dig for that if you want me to.

Edit: And yes, nonsexual abuse is also quite serious.

I'd appreciate that

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:54 pm**

Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
Galloism wrote:I'm pretty sure that I read a study that, even in nonsexual abuse, it's disproportionately cross-gender (I.E., the abuser and the abused are typically of opposite gender).

When I get up tomorrow I can try to dig for that if you want me to.

Edit: And yes, nonsexual abuse is also quite serious.

I'd appreciate that

Will do my best.

Posted: **Mon Sep 12, 2016 11:41 pm**

Galloism wrote:
Soldati Senza Confini wrote:
I think the other problem with the "abuse" narrative, and this is something I am using your post as an example of, is this narrative that abuse HAS to be sexual abuse by default.

There's many ways a child is abused by their parents, not just sexual. But sexual is that which people are more drawn to because it is the most egregious. Neglect and emotional abuse are forms of abuse which is far more insidious than sexual abuse, and far more damaging because they are long-term forms of abuse without any immediate recourses to the law or society at large, and yet people don't think of it as abuse because the parent is the ultimate authority at home.

I'm pretty sure that I read a study that, even in nonsexual abuse, it's disproportionately cross-gender (I.E., the abuser and the abused are typically of opposite gender).

When I get up tomorrow I can try to dig for that if you want me to.

Edit: And yes, nonsexual abuse is also quite serious.

I believe I read somewhere that men are more likely to dole out one way abuse than women but women and men are more likely to be mutually abusive than not.

EDIT: Not that we should be using such statistics to decide relevant public policy of course.

Posted: **Tue Sep 13, 2016 3:45 am**

Philjia wrote:I believe I read somewhere that men are more likely to dole out one way abuse than women but women and men are more likely to be mutually abusive than not.

Since domestic abuse was being raised:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/5/prweb10741752.htm

The most comprehensive review of the scholarly domestic violence research literature ever conducted concludes, among other things, that women perpetrate physical and emotional abuse, as well as engage in control behaviors, at comparable rates to men. The Partner Abuse State of Knowledge project, or PASK, whose final installment was just published in the journal Partner Abuse, is an unparalleled three-year research project, conducted by 42 scholars at 20 universities and research centers, and including information on 17 areas of domestic violence research.

http://www.domesticviolenceresearch.org ... imization/

Overall, results indicated that physical IPV victimization is prominent among men and women in heterosexual relationships. Across all studies included in this review, approximately one in four women (23.1%) and one in five men (19.3%) experienced physical violence in an intimate relationship, with an overall pooled prevalence estimate of 22.4%.

And significantly less scientific http://jezebel.com/294383/have-you-ever ... uh-we-have

Of course, this flies in the face of established feminist (and government) dogma. Take a look at the Duluth Model, which was (and as far as I know, still is) the most widely used model for tackling domestic violence. It is based in feminist theory positing that "domestic violence is the result of patriarchal ideology in which men are encouraged and expected to control their partners." A core premise is the idea that men are always the perpetrator and women the victim. When the law is stacked against you it is inevitable that men are going to be less inclined to report an attack when chances are they are going to be treated as the perpetrator. Suddenly the one in five figure for men looks likely to be a low end estimate.

There is also some evidence that women are more likely to be the aggressor in domestic violence in non-reciprocated violence:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1854883/

Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

Philjia wrote:EDIT: Not that we should be using such statistics to decide relevant public policy of course.

Indeed, we shouldn't. Nor should we allow feminist theory to dictate public policy either. A non-gendered approach free from the peddled bullshit of "patriarchy." Is the most rational approach.