4 ms·

I think we should try it? Teaching daughters to be responsible for not getting sexually assaulyed implicitly communicates that men are not responsible. It can e

I think we should try it? Teaching daughters to be responsible for not getting sexually assaulyed implicitly communicates that men are not responsible. It can easily be interpreted as victim-blaming. Can you elaborate about how teaching sons not to sexually assault people is disempowering to women? I need help understanding female empowerment.

DoreenMichele 9y ago
Teaching daughters to be responsible for not getting sexually assaulted implicitly communicates that men are not responsible. It can easily be interpreted as victim-blaming. That view grows out of our current mental models. Those mental models are the crux of the problem. Protecting yourself from criminal intent in no way absolves the criminal of guilt. We don't draw that conclusion about any other crime. We don't tell people that thieves are not guilty of a crime if you failed to lock your house. We still encourage people to lock up to protect themselves from robbers while not thinking this somehow makes it your fault if the house gets broken into. If you run into a bear in the woods and you run from it, it will incite the bear's chase instinct and get you mauled. Teaching people best practices for how to reduce the odds of getting mauled if they run into a bear is not saying it is their fault. Refusing to teach them how to effectively handle it because girls shouldn't know such things means girls will either not go out into the world or they will routinely get mauled. Both of those outcomes are harmful to the lives of girls. Neither one gives girls full lives end par with the guys. There will always be predators. You will never achieve a perfect world. Not arming women to cope effectively with that reality essentially dooms them to sooner or later get preyed upon. It also actively teaches them to be prey. But that's a nuanced discussion you are probably not ready for and I am not super awake either, so not really up for anything that challenging.
- falsedan 9y ago
  I get that you should be reasonably prepared for calamitous events. I don’t get the disempowering part, nor do I feel like it’s ok to just tell daughters (I know you didn’t say that, but likewise you haven’t addressed how prevention be best discussed with sons rather than avoidance with daughters). Perhaps they are related and I’m unaware of the connection. I don’t need a complete explanation; I’m happy to get myself educated from an appropriate source.
  - DoreenMichele 9y ago
    There's this: http://www.girlscouts.org/en/raising-girls/happy-and-healthy/happy/what-is-consent.html http://www.girlscouts.org/en/raising-girls/happy-and-healthy... You might find it useful to google for enthusiastic consent and sex positive resources as well. But you are the one coming up with this idea that it should be discussed with one gender or the other. I raised my sons this way. My original remarks were aimed at someone with a daughter, but there is no position here on my side to choose only one gender to educate. I would like this to be a new cultural standard across the board. If you want to stamp out rape culture, then we need a new culture. This includes everyone, not one gender or the other. The idea that it should be all on men to make sure sex goes well is rooted in current concepts of gender and heterosexual norms that actively train girls to be reactive, not proactive. It is rooted in a patriarchal framing of the world. This framing is inherently incompatible with female empowerment. What if I want to ask? What then? How does your concept of focusing on men help there? The other thing is that putting it on men amounts to assuming guilt. This never goes good places. There is a reason the US legal standard starts with an assumption of innocence. Warning men they need to not be rapey bastards begins with this assumption that there is a very big chance that they will do something terrible if they aren't berated from the get go. What if we treat both men and women like people who likely need to politely negotiate a mutually acceptable arrangement to get their needs met? That negotiation process requires substantive communication about the matter, but it isn't inherently predatory -- unless we make it so culturally, as we currently tend to do.
    - falsedan 9y ago
      > But you are the one coming up with this idea that it should be discussed with one gender or the other. To be clear: I'm asking you why you're not recommending this be discussed with sons first. I thought it was weird you mentioned educating daughter and didn't mention sons. > The idea that it should be all on men to make sure sex goes well is rooted in current concepts of gender and heterosexual norms that actively train girls to be reactive, not proactive. It is rooted in a patriarchal framing of the world. This framing is inherently incompatible with female empowerment. OK, I see. Though I think that you can encourage women to be sexual empowered & and men to avoid sexual assault. > The other thing is that putting it on men amounts to assuming guilt I don't understand this in the slightest. It sounds 100% like victim blaming. > What if we treat both men and women like people who likely need to politely negotiate a mutually acceptable arrangement to get their needs met? What if I have some advantage over you? Physical, economic, a weapon? There can't be a fair agreement if one side can threaten the other, even if that side is unaware of their advantage.

DoreenMichele 9y ago

Teaching daughters to be responsible for not getting sexually assaulted implicitly communicates that men are not responsible. It can easily be interpreted as victim-blaming. That view grows out of our current mental models. Those mental models are the crux of the problem. Protecting yourself from criminal intent in no way absolves the criminal of guilt. We don't draw that conclusion about any other crime. We don't tell people that thieves are not guilty of a crime if you failed to lock your house. We still encourage people to lock up to protect themselves from robbers while not thinking this somehow makes it your fault if the house gets broken into. If you run into a bear in the woods and you run from it, it will incite the bear's chase instinct and get you mauled. Teaching people best practices for how to reduce the odds of getting mauled if they run into a bear is not saying it is their fault. Refusing to teach them how to effectively handle it because girls shouldn't know such things means girls will either not go out into the world or they will routinely get mauled. Both of those outcomes are harmful to the lives of girls. Neither one gives girls full lives end par with the guys. There will always be predators. You will never achieve a perfect world. Not arming women to cope effectively with that reality essentially dooms them to sooner or later get preyed upon. It also actively teaches them to be prey. But that's a nuanced discussion you are probably not ready for and I am not super awake either, so not really up for anything that challenging.

falsedan 9y ago
I get that you should be reasonably prepared for calamitous events. I don’t get the disempowering part, nor do I feel like it’s ok to just tell daughters (I know you didn’t say that, but likewise you haven’t addressed how prevention be best discussed with sons rather than avoidance with daughters). Perhaps they are related and I’m unaware of the connection. I don’t need a complete explanation; I’m happy to get myself educated from an appropriate source.
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  There's this: http://www.girlscouts.org/en/raising-girls/happy-and-healthy/happy/what-is-consent.html http://www.girlscouts.org/en/raising-girls/happy-and-healthy... You might find it useful to google for enthusiastic consent and sex positive resources as well. But you are the one coming up with this idea that it should be discussed with one gender or the other. I raised my sons this way. My original remarks were aimed at someone with a daughter, but there is no position here on my side to choose only one gender to educate. I would like this to be a new cultural standard across the board. If you want to stamp out rape culture, then we need a new culture. This includes everyone, not one gender or the other. The idea that it should be all on men to make sure sex goes well is rooted in current concepts of gender and heterosexual norms that actively train girls to be reactive, not proactive. It is rooted in a patriarchal framing of the world. This framing is inherently incompatible with female empowerment. What if I want to ask? What then? How does your concept of focusing on men help there? The other thing is that putting it on men amounts to assuming guilt. This never goes good places. There is a reason the US legal standard starts with an assumption of innocence. Warning men they need to not be rapey bastards begins with this assumption that there is a very big chance that they will do something terrible if they aren't berated from the get go. What if we treat both men and women like people who likely need to politely negotiate a mutually acceptable arrangement to get their needs met? That negotiation process requires substantive communication about the matter, but it isn't inherently predatory -- unless we make it so culturally, as we currently tend to do.
  - falsedan 9y ago
    > But you are the one coming up with this idea that it should be discussed with one gender or the other. To be clear: I'm asking you why you're not recommending this be discussed with sons first. I thought it was weird you mentioned educating daughter and didn't mention sons. > The idea that it should be all on men to make sure sex goes well is rooted in current concepts of gender and heterosexual norms that actively train girls to be reactive, not proactive. It is rooted in a patriarchal framing of the world. This framing is inherently incompatible with female empowerment. OK, I see. Though I think that you can encourage women to be sexual empowered & and men to avoid sexual assault. > The other thing is that putting it on men amounts to assuming guilt I don't understand this in the slightest. It sounds 100% like victim blaming. > What if we treat both men and women like people who likely need to politely negotiate a mutually acceptable arrangement to get their needs met? What if I have some advantage over you? Physical, economic, a weapon? There can't be a fair agreement if one side can threaten the other, even if that side is unaware of their advantage.