4 ms·

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 kno

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
    I thought it was weird you mentioned educating daughter and didn't mention sons. I was speaking to a specific individual about educating their own child. That child happens to be a daughter. That's it. You are entirely fabricating this idea that I was talking about the need to educate girls, but not boys. My very first sentence is gender neutral: Teach your child that hugs and kisses require mutual consent. I only switched to female pronouns after that because I was addressing a specific person who had specified the gender of their own child. That first sentence stands well on its own for speaking to any parent, regardless of the gender of their child. It was intentionally framed that way because the message is gender neutral on purpose. There can't be a fair agreement if one side can threaten the other, even if that side is unaware of their advantage. Therein lies your problem. You fundamentally see men as predators and women as prey. This is an issue that isn't going to be resolved via some internet conversation. I could talk at you until I am blue in the face, you would continue to not understand, continue to accuse me of victim blaming etc. Most likely, there is no point in investing more of my time in this discussion. There can be no meeting of the minds here.

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
  I thought it was weird you mentioned educating daughter and didn't mention sons. I was speaking to a specific individual about educating their own child. That child happens to be a daughter. That's it. You are entirely fabricating this idea that I was talking about the need to educate girls, but not boys. My very first sentence is gender neutral: Teach your child that hugs and kisses require mutual consent. I only switched to female pronouns after that because I was addressing a specific person who had specified the gender of their own child. That first sentence stands well on its own for speaking to any parent, regardless of the gender of their child. It was intentionally framed that way because the message is gender neutral on purpose. There can't be a fair agreement if one side can threaten the other, even if that side is unaware of their advantage. Therein lies your problem. You fundamentally see men as predators and women as prey. This is an issue that isn't going to be resolved via some internet conversation. I could talk at you until I am blue in the face, you would continue to not understand, continue to accuse me of victim blaming etc. Most likely, there is no point in investing more of my time in this discussion. There can be no meeting of the minds here.