Advertisement
by Soldati Senza Confini » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:00 pm
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Frenline Delpha » Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:01 pm
by Chessmistress » 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.
by Luminesa » 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.
by Soldati Senza Confini » 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.htmlHeterosexuality 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?
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Impireacht » 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...
by Soldati Senza Confini » 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.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Imperializt Russia » 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/
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Luminesa » 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.
by The East Marches » 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?
by Imperializt Russia » 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.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Soldati Senza Confini » 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.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Soldati Senza Confini » 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...
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Costa Fierro » 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...
by FelrikTheDeleted » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:00 pm
by Sack Jackpot Winners » Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:23 pm
Chessmistress wrote:You keep being entitled.
It's quite funny, but even boring.
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.
Chessmistress wrote:learn it the hard way.
Sometimes I think explaining things it's a waste of time, really.
You're obsolete, you've to prove you could be useful
by Grinning Dragon » 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
by Galloism » 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...
by Soldati Senza Confini » 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.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Galloism » 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.
by Soldati Senza Confini » 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.
Tekania wrote:Welcome to NSG, where informed opinions get to bump-heads with ignorant ideology under the pretense of an equal footing.
by Galloism » 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
by Philjia » 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.
by Hirota » 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.
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.
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%.
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.
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.Philjia wrote:EDIT: Not that we should be using such statistics to decide relevant public policy of course.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Anarcopia, Corporate Collective Salvation, Durius, Ethel mermania, Grinning Dragon, Hypron, Infected Mushroom, Majestic-12 [Bot], Phoeniae, Tungstan, Valentine Z, Valyxias
Advertisement