News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
And this is why we don’t allow our kids to participate in sleep overs.
Edit: Downvote all you want, sleepovers are weird and too risky.
Edit 2: Ok I wasn’t going to include this context but since you are all so ignorant I feel the need to. My son went on a sleep over when he was 14 and ended up getting molested. So for the rest of my kids (yes they are teen girls), there is a zero sleep over policy.
So for all of you judgmental assholes, fuck off.
And this is why you have the weird kids who can't function
Sleepovers were a huge part of my childhood.
Waking up in the morning at your best friends house and playing Nintendo with the volume on the tv way down before their parents are awake who then make us pancakes are core memories.
Should be a said though that my friends parents were reasonable close friends with my own parents and my friends slept over at my place regularly as well.
You raise your kids however you want but don’t underestimate the small experience of independence a sleepover can give a child.
Do you also not allow your kids to set foot in a car? Much more dangerous than sleepovers
Car rides are necessary, sleep overs are not.
How many of your car rides are really necessary?
Kids get abducted if you allow them to go outside, never let them go outside.
Stranger danger. Better to not let them talk to any people or use the Internet either.
That's not the solution
Your child is going to hate you for smothering them and unfairly limiiting their ability to be a child because of your misplaced anxieties. This sort of shit is an exception to the normal, and your hurting your children by cowering in fear over something that's a very low probability.
I hope you don't drive your kids anywhere, that's waaaaaaay too risky and dangerous for them if you think sleepovers are risky.
Yes, yes, restrict and police rather than educate and enable personal agency. All children need is to live in an impermeable bubble of perfect safety, not learn any life skills at all... 🤦🏼♂️
Fucksake. Your kids are going to be stunted adults that require $$$$ of therapy to function in the real world. Congrats.
I grew up with a guy that was stunted by his parents. Study, don't go out except on a few select occasions, do this sport, no girls.
He did really great at school, great student, good guy, good athlete. Then he had to live home for university and went completely overboard. Overweight, stuck with a controlling woman who took advantage of him, failing in his studies. It's really sad.
You're their parent, who cares what rando internet strangers think. You do what you feel is best for your kids.
Weirdly specific. I had an argument about this exact thing on a post a few weeks ago. There was someone who had a friend who ~~lost~~ was divorced by his wife (phrasing issue) and couldn't understand why other parents were wary of him hosting a sleepover for his daughter. He had done so many times as a married man but suddenly couldn't.
So the argument was about how women in general, especially parents of little girls, can't blindly trust every man they meet. There were some salty males insisting that line of logic is sexist.
Anyway, banning all sleepovers isn't the solution. Properly chaperoned sleepovers with two parents present should be fine.
[Edit: Yes, I realize that it's technically sexist. The fact that it is is beside the point that it's necessary for women to be wary of men. If you don't understand why, ask literally any woman in your life to explain it for you]
[Edit #2: I'm not engaging anyone else on the subject from this point. I have successfully fallen into the same trap of holding dudes' hands who don't understand that strange men do, in fact, pose a risk to women, and now my morning has been wasted.
I already elaborated this point more than enough. If you still feel the need to express how this offends you after you read down this thread, I would urge you to look elsewhere into women's perspectives on the subject before you just handwave it like these guys are trying to do.]
Explain to me how that is not sexist?
Here's the Oxford Dictionary of sexism:
To burst your bubble, some of the most famous rapists and child molesters I know of had their wives help them. Women can be monsters too.
99% of sexual assault cases are perpetrated by men, and 91% of the victims are women
I really don't wish to rehash this. For the sake of simplicity, yes. It fits the technical definition of sexism. However, arguing that women shouldn't be wary of men they don't know because it might hurt someone's feelings is completely ridiculous, especially when the thing at stake is a woman or girl's safety.
I understand, believe me because I had to reassure several people multiple times, that women can also be monsters. That doesn't change the fact that perpetrators of sexual assault cases are overwhelmingly men.
This cannot be overstated. Even sexual assault against men is perpetrated 86% of the time by other men. See Page 32
I hesitate to even engage you on this because there's a fine line between logically arriving at the point that it is in fact sexist, and blindly extending the claim to the connotation that discrimination in that sense shouldn't exist at all. If you are going to argue the latter, I'm not going any further than this.
It is a difficult problem because using statistics like that you end up supporting people who say you should be wary of blacks because 14% of the population is black yet commit 53% of the murders.
Imo it's more important to look at the percentage of crime in general. Googling says around 12,000 pedos out of 330 million people. If you live your life by your statistics you shouldn't let your kids inside a car. Driving them to a sleepover is far more dangerous than the sleepover.
The reality is that women do.
No, this is a different thing. People who espouse that line of logic are explicitly using it to justify racism. There are several other factors that play into that specific statistic, including the population density of black people in areas where crime is already high, and the likelihood of being economically disadvantaged just by being in a black family from generational poverty.
That stat specifically is simplified to a bare number and used as a bludgeon by racists.
I understand how you misinterpreted the point, given the actual subject of the post, but those statistics are about sexual assault in general. 1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact in their lifetime. I'd say that's high enough number to warrant being aware of a situation where you, as a woman, might be vulnerable to that.
To relate to the point you're trying to make about comparing this to justifying racism with black crime stats, would you choose to walk through a neighborhood where the crime rate was high? Regardless of the demographic makeup of the neighborhood, is it morally wrong to arrive at the conclusion that you are not safe in certain areas because the statistical likelihood of being assaulted is higher?
Does the sentence "If I don't walk through this neighborhood then I must be prejudiced against the people here who don't commit crimes" make sense to you?
If the answer to all of those is no, then you can at least recognize the line of logic women have to be conscious of when they are faced with potentially being in a precarious situation around a man who they don't know.
Just as you use your statistic to justify sexism. You don't consider the factors that cause men to be sexual predators. Because to you, the cause isn't your problem, being attacked is your problem. You can't have it both ways.
100% of women will experience a car crash in their lifetime. (3-4 accidents per lifetime).
I have said several times already that it's sexism. That doesn't make it wrong to be cautious, nor is it justifying the fact.
Sexism in its barest definition exists in benign circumstances all around us. Why do men and women have different bathrooms? Different sports leagues? Different car insurance rates?
Arguing that sexism shouldn't exist for the sake of it in this specific case is selectively pushing equality in the face of women's safety.
Let's extend your logic on this: is it wrong to wear a seat belt given, statistically, that you will experience a car crash at some point? Because in effect, that's what this line of logic is.
Or are you just being obtuse? Because in order for this point to make sense, you'd have to argue against practicing safety in the face of statistical likelihood. Which is literally what this is about
Oh, please do educate me on what causes men to sexually assault women. Yes, the fact that women are being attacked is the problem. The cause should not preclude women from taking measures to ensure their safety.
As long as I have spent clarifying this point, besides the misguided notion that we should push equality in a situation that is fundamentally unequal, I seriously don't understand how people don't get it.
The patriarchy and culture of toxic masculinity. Added to that many religions teach that men are more important than women.
Again if you live your life by those statistics, you would also be wary of black people. Saying "yeah it's sexism but it's justified because statistics show men commit more sexual assaults" is no different than saying you are wary of blacks based on the same statistics.
And because of this, it's not important for women to protect themselves? We should denounce the fact that women protect themselves because society has conditioned men to be violent?
Look, I'm all about addressing the root cause, but just pointing at one injustice in society doesn't make another just disappear.
You really need to stop saying "well if you're taking precautions based on statistics you must also be racist"
Because that's a really transparent fallacy that essentially just boils down to you asserting "women shouldn't protect themselves because what about black people?"
These are separate points, and putting the words in my mouth that I must be racist is nothing more than deflection to avoid addressing the actual point.
Additionally, I know very many people who wear seat belts because of the statistical chance of being in a wreck. According to your fallacy, all of those people must also be racist.
The fallacy I'm trying to elaborate is mismatched risk. Cars are far more dangerous but you ignore that risk. You could choose to not be sexist just like you currently choose to ignore the statistics to not be racist.
1 in 3 women experience unwanted sexual contact at least once in their lifetime. That's roughly 65 million women in the states.
That's not an insignificant risk. You may choose to ignore it, but you clearly don't have to live with it.
Saying "women should ignore potential danger" on the premise that it's not fair to a man, who is 9 times out of 10 not even effected by the precautions that women tend to take, is basically like saying you shouldn't wear a seat belt so that you don't accidentally offend the other drivers on the road.
You aren't discriminating against those other drivers by being conscious of your own safety.
Whether or not you agree with that doesn't really change the fact that women are taught to go to the bathroom in groups or go to the bar with friends (or really not go anywhere alone that they might not be able to easily call for help) or carry mace or cross the street to avoid a man that's looking at them creepily or any number of avoidant situations.
These are things women do to protect themselves that literally only affect the men who wanted to and would otherwise miss an opportunity to assault them, and things women are taught to do by other women because sexual assault is a thing that happens.
The only context things like this are even brought up as "sexist" at all is when men realize that women have to do it and then get offended on the behalf of all men because it's "not fair". Like in this conversation we're having now.
That sounds much more reasonable, but don't forget these numbers are also skewed by sexism, on many levels. Victims might not even realize they are victims. In many jurisdictions a woman having nonconsensual sex with a man isn't even considered rape.
Now, I don't believe the numbers are even close to 50/50 or that women don't have the right thing being wary. But being wary is one thing, simply banning all sleepovers at the house of single male parents is another. I'd still call that sexist.
It wasn't defined as rape in the US until 2013. The FBI only considered "penetration" to be rape until the definition was revised, so national statistics didn't represent ANY female-on-male rapes, unless the female used a body part or object on the male victim's anus.
I appreciate that you even understand that what you're saying is sexist and are self aware enough to realize it is and had to come up with a goalpost moving reason why your statement isn't actually sexist, really.
If you don't understand why people would be upset that people lost trust in their ability to not be a rapist just because their wife died, I think you need to take a full college course in empathy. This isn't "blindly trusting every man they meet" this is specifically "I no longer trust you because you don't have a woman in the house who would prevent you from being a pedophile", and is 10000% a sexist statement.
Fellas, is it wrong to fear for the safety of your children?
It's quite ironic of you to take that stance, on this post.
Yeah, it's sexist. That doesn't make taking precaution wrong. If you want clarification on that subject, go read the essay I wrote for the other guy. Or maybe ask a lady friend. Most women tend to understand this concept pretty well, given they have to live with it.
Yeah, no. None of my lady friends would tell me they'd stop trusting a dude to watch their kids because his wife died. Because I've seen how they treated a friend who had that happen after he lost his wife young to cancer. They supported the dude and he still got to let his daughter and friends hang out at his house and sleep over. Maybe that's just because they're not secretly sexist? Not everyone is so afraid of their own shadow that they'd abandon a friend like that.
Also, I'm only aware of 1 or 2 ladies in my friend group who haven't told me about being sexually assaulted, so believe it or not, I understand how common this is. But hey, what do I know about it, I'm just some guy whose had to comfort a partner and multiple friends after being assaulted. I haven't had to truly experience it.
Every racist and misogynist thinks their -ism is justified too. It's not that they know it's wrong and do it anyway.
To be clear, the man in question was divorced. Unknown reasons. Not widowed.
Also, I'm not over here saying that no man should ever be trusted in that situation. Just that I won't blame parents who do look at that situation and don't want their girls at that sleepover.
In any case, I'm pretty tired of arguing against the "secretly sexist" accusations. Call it what you want. The concept is out there, and you clearly understand it.
Hey !beardown@lemmy.world care to have another pointless argument where you perform some mental gymnastics about how this situation doesn't happen enough to warrant women having a reason to be wary of men?
People are down voting you, but I've heard about a lot of inappropriate behavior at sleepovers from people close to me, boys and girls. Me and my siblings were not allowed to go to sleepovers. Nobody thought we were weird. Once my parents grew a relationship with a friend's parents, that rule got broken once in a while. Other than that, we were allowed to invite a friend over for a sleepover if we wanted one 🤷🏼♀️ I'm an adult now with my own child, and I'm really glad my parents protected me. I will have the same rule
Genuine question, what makes your house safer for a sleepover than other parents'? Of course you know your house is safe, but other parents could feel the same way.
Yeah but it's you who has to make the decisions about your kid's safety, not them. And you don't know what you don't know. I wouldn't blindly 100% trust strangers with my kid just because of a logical fairness any more than I would lend my car to random person off the street because I have no evidence they would steal it.
I think it's best if you can get to know people first. Even if it's just for your own peace of mind and so that it's visibly clear to them that there will be someone holding them accountable.
They did say that the rule gets broken on occasion if the parents knew the other parents really well.
Which is kinda funny, because people are sexually asaulted way more by people they know vs. people they don't know.