From the article: “… the U.S. disproportionately incarcerates people who are black, Latino/a, low-income, or mentally ill …” It’s bizarre to me how indigenous people get ghosted in all kinds of...
From the article:
“… the U.S. disproportionately incarcerates people who are black, Latino/a, low-income, or mentally ill …”
It’s bizarre to me how indigenous people get ghosted in all kinds of coverage and even research. In this case, it’s Native Americans.
As for the main thrust of the article, I need to reread it in more detail. It’s not surprising that women also commit sexual assault. But the nuance is in the numbers, for one thing. I’m not sure how to interpret them.
I do agree that when men are victims of women, it’s more difficult for them to find support, both from services and society in general.
Thank you for pointing this out. It's especially egregious when it's in the context of disproportionate incarceration, as Native Americans are you hugely overrepresented in the criminal legal system.
It’s bizarre to me how indigenous people get ghosted in all kinds of coverage and even research. In this case, it’s Native Americans.
Thank you for pointing this out. It's especially egregious when it's in the context of disproportionate incarceration, as Native Americans are you hugely overrepresented in the criminal legal system.
That a good point. In this context it is particularly outrageous. I was on a training about mental health supports recently. Same thing; a glaringly low proportion of non-white people and...
That a good point. In this context it is particularly outrageous.
I was on a training about mental health supports recently. Same thing; a glaringly low proportion of non-white people and absolutely no Native Americans were researched. When asked why, they acknowledged the issue but had no good explanation for it.
Disclaimer; I’m not from the US but attended remotely.
I'm having a hard time understanding why this article was dropped in ~life.women. Is it because the author tells us that this is a feminist issue because unless we accept and discuss that we are...
I'm having a hard time understanding why this article was dropped in ~life.women. Is it because the author tells us that this is a feminist issue because unless we accept and discuss that we are also rapists, we continue to perpetrate the idea that we are one-dimensional harmless victims?
It is unfortunate that neither ~life.women nor ~life.men contain a description of what the groups are supposed to be. Historically, Tildes groups are meant to house content, not people. That logic...
It is unfortunate that neither ~life.women nor ~life.men contain a description of what the groups are supposed to be.
Historically, Tildes groups are meant to house content, not people. That logic fails to acknowledge the needs of special groups such as the above and ~lgbt. It is my understanding that these groups are under more strict and attentive moderation. As it should be.
The article I submitted is about sexual violence perpetrated by women, and it is abundantly specific about it. Women, as a group, are explicitly and consistently stated as one of the main topics, both in the title and in the content. It details the locations and circumstances in which such abuse takes place, discusses the importance of highlighting those cases, and argues that doing so is compatible with a feminist worldview. It also discusses sexual violence against women, by women.
I can hardly think of an article that belongs more in ~life.women than this.
It's about women through and through. Its conditions of belonging are multiple, relevant, clear, and strong. I only posted in ~life to avoid nitpicking and needlessly defensive responses, since posting directly to ~life.women could be perceived by some as a call for confrontation. That alone is a valid reason for @cfabbro to bring it back to ~life. I can't think of another.
Edit #2 I actually don't know why this has me all in a snit. I saw it last night and didn't think it belonged in women, and woke up this morning still thinking about it. My behavior isn't making...
I think it's disingenuous that you deleted your earlier comment where you stated that that if it had been a topic about men being sexually violent against women (Edit in ~life.men) that no one there would have an issue with it, then calling me defensive because I responded to that assertion, saying you were done commenting. I thought fair enough, and didn't engage anymore.
Cool, you made a case about why it should be a women's issue and be in ~lifewomen. I don't agree. What do you want from me?
Edit #2 I actually don't know why this has me all in a snit. I saw it last night and didn't think it belonged in women, and woke up this morning still thinking about it. My behavior isn't making the situation better. There are some actual good points of discussion for both women and men in this article, it could have been placed in either group.
You seem to address me with great distrust and suspicion. No productive conversation can take place in those circumstances. Your mind is made up, and I must have ulterior motives. Ironically, your...
You seem to address me with great distrust and suspicion. No productive conversation can take place in those circumstances. Your mind is made up, and I must have ulterior motives. Ironically, your attitude seems to validate my concerns. Nothing I have to say will change your preconceptions at this point. I respectfully wish you a good day. Hopefully, we can converse again in less adversarial conditions.
That is really okay. I also sometimes write in a way that does not correspond to my own emotions and intentions. I wouldn't expect you to be perfect in something I struggle with myself. I sure...
That is really okay. I also sometimes write in a way that does not correspond to my own emotions and intentions.
I wouldn't expect you to be perfect in something I struggle with myself.
I sure hope that, in our next interaction, I can act towards you with the same kindness that you are showing towards me.
I agree with you, this belonged in ~life where you put it. I have no idea if all men would have no problem with articles about men perpetrators of sexual violence being dropped in ~life.men since...
I agree with you, this belonged in ~life where you put it. I have no idea if all men would have no problem with articles about men perpetrators of sexual violence being dropped in ~life.men since I am not man. But I doubt that men are a monolith. I'm the only woman who said anything about this article being put into women. Most likely there were women who were just fine with it being there. We aren't a monolith either.
From the article:
“… the U.S. disproportionately incarcerates people who are black, Latino/a, low-income, or mentally ill …”
It’s bizarre to me how indigenous people get ghosted in all kinds of coverage and even research. In this case, it’s Native Americans.
As for the main thrust of the article, I need to reread it in more detail. It’s not surprising that women also commit sexual assault. But the nuance is in the numbers, for one thing. I’m not sure how to interpret them.
I do agree that when men are victims of women, it’s more difficult for them to find support, both from services and society in general.
Thank you for pointing this out. It's especially egregious when it's in the context of disproportionate incarceration, as Native Americans are you hugely overrepresented in the criminal legal system.
That a good point. In this context it is particularly outrageous.
I was on a training about mental health supports recently. Same thing; a glaringly low proportion of non-white people and absolutely no Native Americans were researched. When asked why, they acknowledged the issue but had no good explanation for it.
Disclaimer; I’m not from the US but attended remotely.
I'm having a hard time understanding why this article was dropped in ~life.women. Is it because the author tells us that this is a feminist issue because unless we accept and discuss that we are also rapists, we continue to perpetrate the idea that we are one-dimensional harmless victims?
It is unfortunate that neither ~life.women nor ~life.men contain a description of what the groups are supposed to be.
Historically, Tildes groups are meant to house content, not people. That logic fails to acknowledge the needs of special groups such as the above and ~lgbt. It is my understanding that these groups are under more strict and attentive moderation. As it should be.
The article I submitted is about sexual violence perpetrated by women, and it is abundantly specific about it. Women, as a group, are explicitly and consistently stated as one of the main topics, both in the title and in the content. It details the locations and circumstances in which such abuse takes place, discusses the importance of highlighting those cases, and argues that doing so is compatible with a feminist worldview. It also discusses sexual violence against women, by women.
I can hardly think of an article that belongs more in ~life.women than this.
It's about women through and through. Its conditions of belonging are multiple, relevant, clear, and strong. I only posted in ~life to avoid nitpicking and needlessly defensive responses, since posting directly to ~life.women could be perceived by some as a call for confrontation. That alone is a valid reason for @cfabbro to bring it back to ~life. I can't think of another.
I think it's disingenuous that you deleted your earlier comment where you stated that that if it had been a topic about men being sexually violent against women (Edit in ~life.men) that no one there would have an issue with it, then calling me defensive because I responded to that assertion, saying you were done commenting. I thought fair enough, and didn't engage anymore.Cool, you made a case about why it should be a women's issue and be in ~lifewomen. I don't agree. What do you want from me?Edit #2 I actually don't know why this has me all in a snit. I saw it last night and didn't think it belonged in women, and woke up this morning still thinking about it. My behavior isn't making the situation better. There are some actual good points of discussion for both women and men in this article, it could have been placed in either group.
You seem to address me with great distrust and suspicion. No productive conversation can take place in those circumstances. Your mind is made up, and I must have ulterior motives. Ironically, your attitude seems to validate my concerns. Nothing I have to say will change your preconceptions at this point. I respectfully wish you a good day. Hopefully, we can converse again in less adversarial conditions.
please see my edit.
That is really okay. I also sometimes write in a way that does not correspond to my own emotions and intentions.
I wouldn't expect you to be perfect in something I struggle with myself.
I sure hope that, in our next interaction, I can act towards you with the same kindness that you are showing towards me.
Have a great day :)
You have a good day also, lou. Thank you for helping me bring this back around to being kind to each other :)
Originally it was just in ~life. It seems to have been moved @cfabbro?
I agree with you, this belonged in ~life where you put it. I have no idea if all men would have no problem with articles about men perpetrators of sexual violence being dropped in ~life.men since I am not man. But I doubt that men are a monolith. I'm the only woman who said anything about this article being put into women. Most likely there were women who were just fine with it being there. We aren't a monolith either.