This Is Our Social & Cultural Issues Thread

[Court]

3 hours ago, kieyra said:

Can you imagine today's 'copter parents turning their kids loose on the street the way we were?

On a travel forum I recently saw parents fretting over whether it was safe to let their sixteen-year-old go off on her own while they were in ... Disney World.

I think there is a turn more towards this now.  But I'm definitely the most lax one out of my friends. We've started leaving our 9 year old home alone for short periods of time. 1

But we've also had friends shocked and traumatized by the fact that he's been walking to the bus stop by himself since he was 7. It's two houses down. He'll be fine.

[kieyra]

10 minutes ago, Court said:

I think there is a turn more towards this now.  But I'm definitely the most lax one out of my friends. We've started leaving our 9 year old home alone for short periods of time. 1

But we've also had friends shocked and traumatized by the fact that he's been walking to the bus stop by himself since he was 7. It's two houses down. He'll be fine.

I think the Internet and 24/7 news gave people a heightened sense of danger.  Crime in general has been going down for decades and child stranger abduction is incredibly rare, but it's difficult for people to think rationally about it in the face of sensationalized news stories. (And even then it's often "the parents did it" scenarios anyway, like Caylee Anthony.)

(Even worse, in those rare stranger abduction cases, people will still blame the parents somehow, no matter how careful they were. Sometimes nothing in the world can stop you from being in the wrong place at the wrong time.)

Well, I didn't mean to get this grim.  But we're obviously in a period of major upheaval right now, and it will be interesting to see how history looks back on this time, and how this generation internalizes it.

Edited January 21, 2017 by kieyra

[SlackerInc]

9 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Its hard for me to even consider leaving my kids so unattended, not so much that I don't think they can handle it, but because I'm afraid that some 'busy body' will report me to the cops or child services.  Last year, we started to allow our kids (11 and 8) to stay home alone on school holidays when both I and my husband had to work.  He was usually home by at least 3.  I still told the kids, stay inside, don't answer the door, don't answer the phone (unless caller ID says mom or dad), don't tell your friends you're home alone.

 

5 hours ago, kieyra said:

I think the Internet and 24/7 news gave people a heightened sense of danger.  Crime in general has been going down for decades and child stranger abduction is incredibly rare, but it's difficult for people to think rationally about it in the face of sensationalized news stories. (And even then it's often "the parents did it" scenarios anyway, like Caylee Anthony.)

(Even worse, in those rare stranger abduction cases, people will still blame the parents somehow, no matter how careful they were. Sometimes nothing in the world can stop you from being in the wrong place at the wrong time.)

Well, I didn't mean to get this grim.  But we're obviously in a period of major upheaval right now, and it will be interesting to see how history looks back on this time, and how this generation internalizes it.

There's kind of a mini-trend the past couple years to push back against so-called "helicopter parenting" and romanticize those GenX latchkid days of freedom.  People call it "free range parenting".  But the parents saying "oh no, I couldn't: they'll get kidnapped/molested", and those "free range" types pointing out that such crimes (by strangers) are incredibly rare, are both missing a very important point.

Back in the '70s and '80s, the rates of child death from what are officially called "unintentional injuries" but which most of us would call "accidents" (being trapped in fires, falling from a tree or roof, drowning in a pond, running in the street and getting hit by a car...etc.) were MUCH higher than they are now.  By "MUCH" I don't mean like 30 or 40 percent higher (though that would be significant), but like double or triple the rates they are now (I can dig up the exact numbers if you want).  So the trend toward more supervisory parenting may come from intentions that are kind of pointless (since stranger kidnappings are so rare, as I said), but their effect has been to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of kids (many of whom are now young adult Millennials).

[ShadowFacts]

7 hours ago, SlackerInc said:

 

There's kind of a mini-trend the past couple years to push back against so-called "helicopter parenting" and romanticize those GenX latchkid days of freedom.  People call it "free range parenting".  But the parents saying "oh no, I couldn't: they'll get kidnapped/molested", and those "free range" types pointing out that such crimes (by strangers) are incredibly rare, are both missing a very important point.

Back in the '70s and '80s, the rates of child death from what are officially called "unintentional injuries" but which most of us would call "accidents" (being trapped in fires, falling from a tree or roof, drowning in a pond, running in the street and getting hit by a car...etc.) were MUCH higher than they are now.  By "MUCH" I don't mean like 30 or 40 percent higher (though that would be significant), but like double or triple the rates they are now (I can dig up the exact numbers if you want).  So the trend toward more supervisory parenting may come from intentions that are kind of pointless (since stranger kidnappings are so rare, as I said), but their effect has been to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of kids (many of whom are now young adult Millennials).

Very interesting.  And I always think of these risk analyses in this way:  when something happens to you or your loved one, suddenly its a 100% proposition.  We don't have crystal balls, our instinct as parents is to protect.  It just depends on how risk averse you are as to how comfortable you are about lack of supervision.  There will always be people who go overboard in one direction or another. 

[Guest]

Thank you for the two posts directly above!  That's just how I feel.  Having survived unsupervised childhood in the 70s & 80s does feel like a badge of honor, but a lot of kids didn't, and it's not worth the risk (for me) to reproduce those conditions for my kids in the hopes they're also lucky ones.  The unlucky ones aren't here to speak out in protest but I remember kids dying from stupid shit that could easily be avoided.  And I have scars from avoidable events that I wouldn't wish on my own kid, and plenty of near misses to reflect on.  That's why it is different now, I think.  It's why we have car seats, bike helmets, liquid medications, bathtub safety, smoke detectors, awareness of teen suicide conditions, drug prevention programs, etc., etc.  It's not coddling, it's just common sense now.  

And I get angry about the parenting commentary.   I used to think I was qualified to judge others' parenting.  Now I believe that anyone's parenting is about as much my business as who they sleep with or where they worship.  It's highly personal and we don't know what's best for anyone else.

[Tiger]

21 hours ago, kieyra said:

It was particularly funny to me because I grew up in Florida--when I was 11 or 12, they'd drop us off at Epcot with no chaperones on school trips.

I greq up in Miami, and in I believe 6th grade in 1994 we took an overnight field trip to Epcot and once we got there we literally ran wild as the chaperones sat in the air conditioned tech area.  

My friends and I even took the monorail over to Magic Kingdom for a few hours and the chaperones had no friggin clue.  

But beyond that, my friends and I generally ran wild in the neighborhood with the only directive being be home by dinner.  And then in the summer we'd go out and ran around after dinner well into the night.  

Contrast that with my younger brother who was only born 4 years later in 1986 and when we talk about our childhoods, you'd think we were 24 years apart instead of 4.  

All that said, my older brother (by almost 4 years) was also a run wild/latch key kid, and he and I are very succesful adults whereas our younger brother who was helicoptered is a total fuck up.

[ChromaKelly]

6 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Thank you for the two posts directly above!  That's just how I feel.  Having survived unsupervised childhood in the 70s & 80s does feel like a badge of honor, but a lot of kids didn't, and it's not worth the risk (for me) to reproduce those conditions for my kids in the hopes they're also lucky ones.  The unlucky ones aren't here to speak out in protest but I remember kids dying from stupid shit that could easily be avoided.  And I have scars from avoidable events that I wouldn't wish on my own kid, and plenty of near misses to reflect on.  That's why it is different now, I think.  It's why we have car seats, bike helmets, liquid medications, bathtub safety, smoke detectors, awareness of teen suicide conditions, drug prevention programs, etc., etc.  It's not coddling, it's just common sense now.  

And I get angry about the parenting commentary.   I used to think I was qualified to judge others' parenting.  Now I believe that anyone's parenting is about as much my business as who they sleep with or where they worship.  It's highly personal and we don't know what's best for anyone else.

ITA with both of you. I fall in the middle of helicopter and free range, I suppose. I have two 11 year olds and an 8 year old. A lot of "helicoptering" I do is because if I didn't, people would think I'm negligent. Like leaving them in the car while I run in a store. I'm just now doing that. I HATED having to bring my twins in when they were infants-toddlers. Carrying two infant carriers just so I could grab a few things. Probably would have been fine in the car for five minutes, locked, in my eyesight. Mothers get crap for reading or playing with their phones instead of watching their kids on the playground. There's also a higher level of expected parental involvement in things like school, sports, extra-curricular activities. I really dislike being expected to log in to the school's online grading and assignment system, reminding my kids of this and that, emailing teachers, etc. But if you don't do that, you are not a caring, involved parent. So much of this is also expected of mothers and not fathers but that's another rant.
I don't romanticize the hands-off approach my parents took with me. A lot of times, I felt like no one cared. My brother and I did some really dumb things when my parents were gone, like nearly burned the house down. 

Edited January 21, 2017 by ChromaKelly

[ChromaKelly]

23 hours ago, Hanahope said:

10 year olds have phones.

A note about the phones. It's almost expected that middle schoolers will have phones. We finally broke down and threw SIM cards in our iPhone 3's we had lying around for our 11 year olds. Our school doesn't do calls or emails when buses are running late, I guess because kids have phones. When I do pick them up in the afternoon, the middle school is so big and has several exit points, I end up driving around sometimes trying to find my kids if they forgot where I said to be.  If they decide to stay after school, go over to the library, practice was cancelled, etc I need to know that. 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, ChromaKelly said:

I really dislike being expected to log in to the school's online grading and assignment system, reminding my kids of this and that, emailing teachers, etc.

If it makes you feel better, when they get to high school and possibly even junior high that stuff cuts way back.   Now I have the opposite annoyance.... My daughter will tell me some anecdote about a teacher and I'll say I'd really like to email him/her to discuss that and I'll be told, "No, they tell us they hate it when parents email them."  And I have emailed several and gotten no reply, so I think there are some that don't even check it, odd as that seems to me.  

[theatremouse]

1 hour ago, ChromaKelly said:

What do you mean by "least restrictive"? Can you elaborate on that please? I would for instance, categorize Utah as less restrictive, because that state has little in the way of birthfather rights and a mother can terminate her parental rights 24 hours after giving birth and it is irrevocable. In PA, a mother can sign after 72 hours and she has 30 days to revoke consent.

Here's an article that elaborates on the "least restrictive" bit (and actually uses the same phrase) http://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-adoption-laws.html

Also I would personally categorize Utah as more restrictive since it has more restrictions on who can adopt, whereas what you're addressing sounds mostly limited to who can be adopted. I'm not sure if the comparison would be similar in 1980. That said, I'm not super familiar with the overall laws in Utah so it may also be on the "less restrictive" end of things compared to most states, but the show is in PA so Utah statutes wouldn't really impact in-show logic.

[ChromaKelly]

1 hour ago, theatremouse said:

Here's an article that elaborates on the "least restrictive" bit (and actually uses the same phrase) http://statelaws.findlaw.com/pennsylvania-law/pennsylvania-adoption-laws.html

Also I would personally categorize Utah as more restrictive since it has more restrictions on who can adopt, whereas what you're addressing sounds mostly limited to who can be adopted. I'm not sure if the comparison would be similar in 1980. That said, I'm not super familiar with the overall laws in Utah so it may also be on the "less restrictive" end of things compared to most states, but the show is in PA so Utah statutes wouldn't really impact in-show logic.

Gotcha. I was thinking more in terms of how quickly adoptions go through, not so much who can adopt. I still think it's completely unrealistic that a couple with newborn twins, no plans to adopt, no homestudy underway, and just lost another baby would be allowed to even take temporary foster care of a newborn. 
 

[OtterMommy]

Quoting @Winston9-DT3 from an episode thread:

Quote

I have a friend in DC who has been trying to foster a child for many years and being that she's black, I'm sure a black infant would be ideal.  But all they ever have offered her are teen siblings.  So I'm guessing even fostering a black baby is difficult to get chosen for, at least these days.  Which is good news.

Part of it is that, from what I've been told by a woman who fostered dozens of babies, is that babies are usually placed with certain/specially trained/experienced foster families.  Her situation was a little different as the parents, or a least the birth mothers, were known to the system--she was a person they called who would pick up newborns from the hospital and foster them. But she did have extension qualifications and was set up to care for multiple children at a time.

She is a very interesting woman--I asked her once how hard it was to give up the children (she didn't adopt them).  She said it was frequently heartbreaking when she had to return them to their birth parent/s, because usually the mothers were just getting out of prison and had met the bare minimum requirements to get their children back.  However, about half the time, the parents would waive their rights and the children would be adopted--which was wonderful because it was always an open adoption--not with the parents, but with her.  She has kept in touch with all these children and tells everyone that she has "grandchildren" all over the country.  The adoptive parents, she said, like this arrangement as they know that the children were well-cared for and that she has no desire to "claim" any of them.

[possibilities]

Because of the discussion in the episode thread about whether African American boys are harder to place for adoption than others, I did a little looking around to find references. I had heard this was true, but someone said it isn't, so I wanted to find data. I didn't turn up anything specifically from 1979/1980, or 2016, but fwiw, this is what I was able to find before I got tired of looking around:

Here's an article from 2010 that discusses this directly:
Black Children Left Behind In Adoption Market

Here's the original study that is being talked about in the previous article:
African-American babies and boys least likely to be adopted, study shows

More recent article, looks like it's from 2013:
http://www.nbcsl.org/public-policy/state-issues/state-issues-archive/item/932-reclaiming-our-children-addressing-adoption-rates-for-blacks.html

This surprised me. It says that the USA exports babies for adoption abroad, and that there is not the same trouble placing AA kids outside the country as there is with placing them within our borders. Article is from 2004:
Born in America, adopted abroad: African-American babies are going to parents overseas even as US couples adopt children from other countries

I recently read an interview with Denis O'Hare (William's lover on the show) and his husband, where they talked about this very issue, and their own story of adopting kids. I can't remember where I saw that article, and I couldn't find it again when I did a search tonight, but I found these other ones that talk about some of the same things. I'm including these because of him being show-related, and also because they're super-lovey, in keeping with the show's general try-to-make-you-cry style:
Becoming a Forever Family: Declan Redwood O’Hare’s Adoption Story

Specific quote from the above article, related to adoption of AA boys:

Quote

Hugo and Denis decided to adopt a child from foster care after an eye-opening experience in which a private adoption agency indicated that African American boys were such a hard-to-place demographic that the agency provided financial incentives to families willing to adopt them. As a black man himself, Hugo was deeply upset by this information, and immediately afterward told Denis, “We’re going to go local and adopt six little black boys.” They agreed to start with one, but otherwise Denis was on board.

Here's another article (from 2015) about their family, with a bunch of super-cute pictures:
http://thenextfamily.com/2015/08/interview-with-celebrity-denis-ohare-and-his-husband/

ETA: One more article-- I wasn't going to include it because it's not mostly about the issue at hand, but it's kind of interesting in that it does address transracial adoption, though from a very different angle:
Black parents who adopt white children confront myths

Though it does discuss the issue of AA kids being stuck in the system at higher rates than white kids:

Gloria King, executive director of Black Adoption Placement and Resource Center in Oakland, Ca., explains that black children enter the foster care system at the same rate as white children, but they do not exit at the same rate.

In 2010, black children left the system at a rate of 24 percent and white children left at a rate of 43 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

 

Edited January 23, 2017 by possibilities

[ShadowFacts]

Very interesting, thanks, possibilities.  I couldn't get the first link to work, but it's sad to me that there's even an adoption "market".  And that there is evidence that black children are harder to adopt, so it's not a myth.

[PRgal]

5 hours ago, possibilities said:

 

This surprised me. It says that the USA exports babies for adoption abroad, and that there is not the same trouble placing AA kids outside the country as there is with placing them within our borders. Article is from 2004:
Born in America, adopted abroad: African-American babies are going to parents overseas even as US couples adopt children from other countries

 

Yes, there are at least two agencies in Canada (well, in Ontario, anyway) working with agencies in the US (one in Florida and the other in New York, specifically), newborns with families here.  I don't know how many intended parents these agencies have on the US list, but I am suspecting that it's lower than those waiting for kids in other countries, including countries in Africa - they seemed to be swaying us towards looking into the US.  However, birthparents do the picking, just like Canada, and the costs to adopt from the US are on par with many other countries.  However, the kids in other countries are already wards of their jurisdictions, so it isn't a matter of birth parents doing the picking, but a match, period.  As a mixed Asian/Caucasian-Christian/Jewish couple we might not be seen by the birth parents as "ideal." 

[Hanahope]

On 1/21/2017 at 3:54 PM, ChromaKelly said:

A note about the phones. It's almost expected that middle schoolers will have phones. We finally broke down and threw SIM cards in our iPhone 3's we had lying around for our 11 year olds. Our school doesn't do calls or emails when buses are running late, I guess because kids have phones. When I do pick them up in the afternoon, the middle school is so big and has several exit points, I end up driving around sometimes trying to find my kids if they forgot where I said to be.  If they decide to stay after school, go over to the library, practice was cancelled, etc I need to know that. 

Yeah, our middle school expects the kids to have phones too.  In fact, they have a designated day, Fridays, as "Bring your device to school day" and the teachers all incorporate use of the internet, phones/tablets, apps with their lesson for the day.  I do agree that my daughter having a phone makes it tons easier to find her when picking up from some school event, or when she's out with friends.

 

On 1/21/2017 at 3:38 PM, ChromaKelly said:

I really dislike being expected to log in to the school's online grading and assignment system, reminding my kids of this and that, emailing teachers, etc

My school does this for middle and high school and I love it.  I have an app on my phone that I can instantly check my daughter's assignment and test grades.  And I've had no problems with emailing the teachers.  Twice now, my daughter appeared to have received a near-fail grade on an assignment/test, and when I've emailed the teacher, the teacher wrote back saying she made an error imputing the numbers, and fixed it (and thanked me too).  Had I not caught the error, it may not have been found until months later.

[ShadowFacts]

38 minutes ago, Hanahope said:

Yeah, our middle school expects the kids to have phones too.  In fact, they have a designated day, Fridays, as "Bring your device to school day" and the teachers all incorporate use of the internet, phones/tablets, apps with their lesson for the day.  I do agree that my daughter having a phone makes it tons easier to find her when picking up from some school event, or when she's out with friends.

How does that work for kids who don't have devices?  I know there are many school districts that have tablets for all students, but if that's not the case, the kids without them are at a disadvantage. 

[Guest]

One thing they can do is provide loaners and/or subsidized purchase options.  It's the data plans or internet access that is expensive but if schools provide access on campus and have a library or lab open for homework, that works.  My daughter's high school now requires the use of Canvas, an online course management application many colleges use.  I think next year they move to e-textbooks in many classes, from the printed ones.  

There are alternative/charter schools here that pride themselves on the 'back to basics' approach, and shun technology (as well as fine arts, PE, etc., as far as I can tell).  I personally would be more interested in the opposite approach-- less lecture/3 Rs/paper writing and more novel educational approaches, tech, arts, etc.  

Edited January 23, 2017 by Guest

[Hanahope]

2 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

 

2 hours ago, Hanahope said:

Yeah, our middle school expects the kids to have phones too.  In fact, they have a designated day, Fridays, as "Bring your device to school day" and the teachers all incorporate use of the internet, phones/tablets, apps with their lesson for the day.  I do agree that my daughter having a phone makes it tons easier to find her when picking up from some school event, or when she's out with friends.

How does that work for kids who don't have devices?  I know there are many school districts that have tablets for all students, but if that's not the case, the kids without them are at a disadvantage. 

 

As far as I know, all or nearly all of the students have access to some sort of device.  I know some of my daughter's friends brought the 'family ipad' to school on those days (until their parents bought them a phone).  I know some of the parents have griped a bit about this, saying that they felt forced to buy their kids a device when they hadn't been planning on it at that time.  I know my husband and I were discussing whether or not to get one for our daughter when she started middle school, then I found out about the BYOD day at the parent orientation in May the prior school year, so that essentially made the decision for us.

I would imagine that the school does have loaner tablets if a kid really has no access to one.  Our school district is in a relatively upper middle class area, so I expect the school district believed it wouldn't be a problem for the vast majority of students.

[ShadowFacts]

Our school district has a high number of students receiving free lunches, so I can only imagine that many of those families do not have cell phones for their kids, especially if there are more than one or two children in the family.  Maybe they have one computer at home.  I know families who have no computer, no wifi.  One of those kids just beelines to our tablet when she comes here and politely asks if she can use it.  This is where the problem lies, if you aren't in an upper middle class area and your district is in cost-cutting mode.  Kids in lower income areas get left behind in this regard.  And with that, I will move on since I guess it's gotten pretty far afield of the show.  Unless in future episodes, Tess and Annie beg for cell phones because all the kids have them. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

(people) in lower income areas get left behind in this regard. 

It's often referred to  as the Digital Divide.  Some have access, some don't.  I think at least in schools that until they can provide access for those who don't, or decide access is publicly ubiquitous and/or affordable, there won't be some students in some schools that just miss content.  The print textbooks still work, as does going to the school library to use the internet, etc.  It's possibly not fair but how long do you hold back the vast majority that would be better served by e-learning in order to accommodate inconveniencing the few without home access?  It's a tough question.  

[possibilities]

This is the correct link to the first article I posted upthread (about adoption):

http://thegrio.com/2010/04/29/black-children-left-behind-in-adoption-market/

Thanks to Shadowfacts for pointing out that what I'd originally posted was incorrect!

[ClareWalks]

Can we talk about Horse Creep (don't know his character name, if he has one) and his sexually-aggressive negging of Kate? This is one of those things that really pisses me off. A woman's "no" should be enough. I'm tired of it being played for entertainment or "meet-cute" that a guy can basically say "I'm gonna fuck you" to a woman, she is repulsed, but oh wait...she is secretly intrigued. So she finds a reason to talk to him again, and he insults her ("your voice is annoying"), while still insisting, up in her personal space, that they will have sex. The woman is still intrigued. This is so GROSS and it seriously contributes to issues of consent that are so prevalent today. I know it's "just a TV show," but this does send a message to boys and men that it is okay to act, for lack of a better phrase, like a rape-y shithead.

[chocolatine]

2 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

Can we talk about Horse Creep (don't know his character name, if he has one) and his sexually-aggressive negging of Kate? This is one of those things that really pisses me off.

Yes, I thought his refusal to take no for an answer after she told him she was engaged and rebuffed his advances several times was infuriating in and of itself, but it was made even worse by the fact that he was at work and talking that way to a client. A client who was there to work on deep-seated emotional/psychological issues. That made him cross the line from a garden-variety creep to a predator, and it's very, very disturbing to me that the showrunners think that this is a great way to introduce a romance.

[ShadowFacts]

9 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

Can we talk about Horse Creep (don't know his character name, if he has one) and his sexually-aggressive negging of Kate? This is one of those things that really pisses me off. A woman's "no" should be enough. I'm tired of it being played for entertainment or "meet-cute" that a guy can basically say "I'm gonna fuck you" to a woman, she is repulsed, but oh wait...she is secretly intrigued. So she finds a reason to talk to him again, and he insults her ("your voice is annoying"), while still insisting, up in her personal space, that they will have sex. The woman is still intrigued. This is so GROSS and it seriously contributes to issues of consent that are so prevalent today. I know it's "just a TV show," but this does send a message to boys and men that it is okay to act, for lack of a better phrase, like a rape-y shithead.

I agree and can only hope that the guy is going to get pulled up short.  By Toby, that's probably a given, but that he ends up out of a job.  Even if this is his first time, which to me it seemed very practiced and he was sure of himself so I doubt it, it is unacceptable to be that disrespectful to a paying client.  

[ClareWalks]

5 minutes ago, chocolatine said:

but it was made even worse by the fact that he was at work and talking that way to a client. A client who was there to work on deep-seated emotional/psychological issues. That made him cross the line from a garden-variety creep to a predator,

OMG YES. Who knows what kind of issues Kate might have? Frequent contributors to food addiction/obesity can include prior sexual abuse, child abuse/neglect, an abusive relationship (verbal, physical, emotional), and this guy saw this woman who is probably damaged in some way and thought "I should neg her, make her feel shitty enough about herself that she will give in and screw me even though she has a fiance." GROSS. And wrong. If Kate finds that sort of immorality charming, whatever, but I think it's dangerous to portray this as in any way romantic or effective.

[OtterMommy]

4 hours ago, ClareWalks said:

Can we talk about Horse Creep (don't know his character name, if he has one) and his sexually-aggressive negging of Kate? This is one of those things that really pisses me off. A woman's "no" should be enough. I'm tired of it being played for entertainment or "meet-cute" that a guy can basically say "I'm gonna fuck you" to a woman, she is repulsed, but oh wait...she is secretly intrigued. So she finds a reason to talk to him again, and he insults her ("your voice is annoying"), while still insisting, up in her personal space, that they will have sex. The woman is still intrigued. This is so GROSS and it seriously contributes to issues of consent that are so prevalent today. I know it's "just a TV show," but this does send a message to boys and men that it is okay to act, for lack of a better phrase, like a rape-y shithead.

To me this is one of those weird situations where I'm totally offended by what happened and yet I still have hope that it will be a positive thing for the show.   Let me see if I can explain....there is no excuse for the Horse Dick's behavior and, if the show tries to push this into a romantic or even a 50 Shades sort of thing, I will be very disappointed.

However, if the show actually calls it for what it is and ADDRESSES it, I think it would not only be interesting but provide some sort of service.  I get that it isn't that unusual to see a very confident (which, in TV, translates to attractive) woman rebuff such behavior from a man.  However, it seems to be an "accepted" thing among the (predominately male) creative teams that a woman without that confidence, for whatever reason, wouldn't see it as anything negative and would be almost thankful for it.  This has happened countless times on TV--the man that would be a predator for one woman is Prince Charming for another.  

Now, if this show were to break the mold and have Kate call out Horse Dick and rebuff him in a fit of self-confidence, I would watch the hell out of that.  Will that happen?  My suspicion is no (unfortunately), but we will have to wait and see.

[Guest]

I think negging would be a cool topic for the show to take on but I agree, I don't think they're going there.   They've said Kate wasn't totally turned off.  And we've already seen Kate stand up for herself in a fit of self-confidence multiple times in other situations, so it wouldn't do much to develop the character further.  Unless there's going to be an abusive Duke/Kate relationship coming out of this, I think it's just going to be exactly what we think-- more tension for the Toby/Kate relationship.  

I don't think what Duke did is sexual harassment or abuse of a therapeutic relationship, given his role at the camp.  Bad customer service, for sure.  

Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when either: The conduct is made as a term or condition of an individual's employment, education, living environment or participation in a University community.

[Tiger]

This probably belongs in Unpopular Opinions, but I dont think what Duke did was negging, sexual harrrasment, harrasment in general, rapey, etc . . . all he did was express an interest in her.  

Don't get me wrong, I do think the world at large has a huge problem with men doing these things to women, but I don't see those things in Duke's actions.  

Edited January 29, 2017 by Tiger

[ClareWalks]

5 minutes ago, Tiger said:

This probably belongs in Unpopular Opinions, but I dont think what Duke did was negging, sexual harrrasment, harrasment in general, rapey, etc . . . all he did was express an interest in her.  

He stepped up close to her and said "we'll see about that" when she said she had a fiance. He also closed distance and said definitively "this is happening" when she repeatedly said she wasn't interested. If that isn't harrassment or rapey I don't know what is.

[ShadowFacts]

11 minutes ago, ClareWalks said:

He stepped up close to her and said "we'll see about that" when she said she had a fiance. He also closed distance and said definitively "this is happening" when she repeatedly said she wasn't interested. If that isn't harrassment or rapey I don't know what is.

I agree.  He went far beyond expressing an interest.  I expect they will have Toby punch his lights out but I hope they go further than that.  Even if it's only having Kate verbalize that it's nice to have attention but not that kind, that guy's a dick, etc.  Because to do less than that just makes Kate the "prize", the two guys are fighting to be the alpha male, and it normalizes the pussy-grabbing, "it's just locker room talk" mentality that diminishes everybody. 

[ClareWalks]

Expressing interest in a more respectful way would be "if things don't work out with the fiance, give me a call." Not "who cares about him, this is happening." That's basically a threat.

[Guest]

Rape and sexual harassment are definable, legal concepts.  What he did wasn't rape or sexual harassment.  If someone thinks what he did was behavior leading up to rape or akin to rape, that's their interpretation.  But I think calling it rapey is a bit like saying a violent comment is murdery.   I think it also potentially minimizes the concept of rape to make the word into an adjective that can be applied to a situation like this one.

And I think it's also a misinterpretation, given the show showed us and then told us in the media that Kate didn't find the attention entirely unwelcome.  If Kate kind of liked it and he could tell that (whether the viewer could or not) is what he did even unethical or rude?  I think even that is debatable. 

[ClareWalks]

I would call a violent comment murdery. If he'd closed distance on Kate and said "better keep your doors locked tonight. I have knives," that would be murdery.

My point is, the show is being irresponsible by presenting this disgusting behavior as being a meet-cute or piquing romantic interest in Kate. It reinforces the idea that men should try this shit, because look, it works on TV every time!

[Guest]

Yeah, I didn't love it as a story but I'll give them a chance because I really doubt they're going anywhere into literal violence, abuse or degradation with it.  I haven't seen negging on other tv shows personally but I believe you it's not new here because I don't watch a lot of network tv anymore.  I actually think that's why it was a bit shocking to me was because I don't see that sort of approach really ever.  But if a man began on that path with me, I'd roll my eyes and be outta there, so I wouldn't be letting it escalate like someone who was mildly intrigued would, either.  

[ClareWalks]

22 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

But if a man began on that path with me, I'd roll my eyes and be outta there, so I wouldn't be letting it escalate like someone who was mildly intrigued would, either.  

Word. I'd be like "BYE" and leave a dust cloud shaped like me behind.

[talktoomuch]

1 hour ago, Tiger said:

This probably belongs in Unpopular Opinions, but I dont think what Duke did was negging, sexual harrrasment, harrasment in general, rapey, etc . . . all he did was express an interest in her.

I did take this to the UO thread and it got the same response there that you got here. The people who see harassment and "rapey" (a term I hate) in the scenes between Duke and Kate cannot at all see the viewpoint that you may not.

I agree with @Winston9-DT3 that harassment and rape are and should be defined terms and not used as pejoratives for behavior we don't like.

[ClareWalks]

I apologize to anyone offended by my use of rapey. I use it as a shorthand adjective for "comments and behavior that are designed to intimidate women into giving in to you sexually, or suggestive that someone may push themselves onto you for sex or sexual acts that you are not willing or ready to do." In other words, actions that are indicative of the kind of culture that looks the other way when rape and sexual assault/harassment happens.

[Guest]

Just to be clear, I don't look the other way for rape or sexual assault.  Probably not your implication but just in case!  I just think the writers' intent is that Duke is romantically and/or physically attracted to Kate and I think rape and assault are not at all about those things.  I think it's good to be sensitive to these matters but when it turns into accusing someone of illegal acts that haven't happened, or of plotting illegal acts that aren't necessarily indicated, it's a slippery slope.  In real life, I mean.   

[NutMeg]

17 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Yes, I thought his refusal to take no for an answer after she told him she was engaged and rebuffed his advances several times was infuriating in and of itself, but it was made even worse by the fact that he was at work and talking that way to a client. A client who was there to work on deep-seated emotional/psychological issues. That made him cross the line from a garden-variety creep to a predator, and it's very, very disturbing to me that the showrunners think that this is a great way to introduce a romance.

 

17 hours ago, ClareWalks said:

OMG YES. Who knows what kind of issues Kate might have? Frequent contributors to food addiction/obesity can include prior sexual abuse, child abuse/neglect, an abusive relationship (verbal, physical, emotional), and this guy saw this woman who is probably damaged in some way and thought "I should neg her, make her feel shitty enough about herself that she will give in and screw me even though she has a fiance." GROSS. And wrong. If Kate finds that sort of immorality charming, whatever, but I think it's dangerous to portray this as in any way romantic or effective.

You two nailed my problem with him. Catcall and verbal empty "promises" from construction workers as you walk down the street are one thing. The same, but more forceful, from someone who works in a place where people who are fragile come to as a safe place and where they can't escape him/expect someone like him is totally unacceptable. So, while the act itself in a vacuum would be boorish, that act, in that time and place, and given their respective situations, is a grave professional misconduct. In my opinion. 

Edited January 29, 2017 by NutMeg
I wrote "expect" when I meant "escape", but really both ideas fit, so amended accordingly

[SlackerInc]

18 hours ago, ClareWalks said:

Can we talk about Horse Creep (don't know his character name, if he has one) and his sexually-aggressive negging of Kate? This is one of those things that really pisses me off. A woman's "no" should be enough. I'm tired of it being played for entertainment or "meet-cute" that a guy can basically say "I'm gonna fuck you" to a woman, she is repulsed, but oh wait...she is secretly intrigued. So she finds a reason to talk to him again, and he insults her ("your voice is annoying"), while still insisting, up in her personal space, that they will have sex. The woman is still intrigued. This is so GROSS and it seriously contributes to issues of consent that are so prevalent today. I know it's "just a TV show," but this does send a message to boys and men that it is okay to act, for lack of a better phrase, like a rape-y shithead.

I join those who say calling this "rapey" or "rape-y" is out of line.  It could be considered something akin to street harassment.  And it's certainly unprofessional given his position as staff.

But the reality is that a lot of women do respond to this kind of approach.  You might wish they didn't, I might even wish they didn't, but they do.  If you bemoan this fact, you might at least direct some of the criticism their way, instead of putting it all on the men involved in these pas de deux.

2 hours ago, ClareWalks said:

Expressing interest in a more respectful way would be "if things don't work out with the fiance, give me a call." Not "who cares about him, this is happening." That's basically a threat.

I just don't agree that it's a threat.  He's saying "oh, you can deny it all day long, but I know you want me".  Not "I know you don't want me, but I'm going to force myself on you anyway".

[Tiger]

I also think tone and context need to he considered, here as in any situation.

They were out in the open air in the daytime and he only approacher her because she was talking loudly on her phone which she wasnt supposed to have.  He engaged her in conversation and she engaged back.  

Also, the Duke actor played it as flirty.  I took "this is going to happen" as 'Duke & Kate are going to be a couple one day' NOT 'Duke is going to have sex with Kate against her will'.  I also think Chrissy played it as Kate being receptive while simultaneously rolling her eyes, not 'I'm about to get out my mace and scream for help'. 

As I've said before, I think Chrissy is bringing this level of confidence to Kate that I fully believe Kate knows how to handle someone who goes too far or wants to do something she does not.  

To illustrate, let's say we get a scene down the road where when Randall introduces Beth to the family, that Kate shows her embarrasing/childhood cute photos of Randall.  If Randall looked at Kate and playfully said "I'm going to kill you", no one would accuse Randall of actually wanting to murder Kate.

Edited January 29, 2017 by Tiger

[chocolatine]

4 hours ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

Sexual harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when either: The conduct is made as a term or condition of an individual's employment, education, living environment or participation in a University community.

The definition of sexual harassment extends to unwelcome sexual advances towards a client or customer, as anyone who's had workplace "code of conduct" training knows. If you keep making sexual advances towards someone after they've said no, the advances are considered unwelcome and therefore harassment. That's the part that matters when it comes to a lawsuit.

Those of you who are saying that Kate was "receptive", could you please provide verbal evidence of that? All I saw in that scene was Kate repeatedly and decisively saying no and eventually physically removing herself from the situation.

49 minutes ago, SlackerInc said:

But the reality is that a lot of women do respond to this kind of approach.

Unless you can present statistically significant data for this, you are essentially extrapolating from your anecdotal experience with what can at most be a few dozen women that any woman's verbal rejection of sexual advances is to be ignored. That kind of attitude is why there is a rape culture.

[SlackerInc]

If by "anecdotal" you are implying that I have approached women this way, I can assure you that I have not. But I have seen it work many times, far more than "dozens" of times.  I have always been a very social person and some of my friends are still single, so I have observed the "meet market" hundreds of times at least. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, chocolatine said:

Those of you who are saying that Kate was "receptive", could you please provide verbal evidence of that?

 

On 1/28/2017 at 8:41 AM, Winston9-DT3 said:

 

That People writer saw the Duke scenes like you and I did.  

Kate made the acquaintance of the camp’s horse stable employee and reverse psychologist Duke (Adam Bartley), who boldly made known his intentions to win her over romantically. This prompted her to mention that she was engaged, but in a way that hinted at possibility, or at least tension — and made you think that Toby (Chris Sullivan) had better watch his back.

The original post has the link but the italicized is from the article.  I think there is also a Q&A with Fogelman somewhere (or in that article) where he also confirms Kate wasn't as disinterested as her words implied, possibly.  I think.  

I have had that workplace training but I don't recall anything about customers, though if I google it (funnily) the links are all about customers harassing workers, not vice versa.  I just googled 'what is sexual harassment' for that definition I pasted in above.  Duke has no power over Kate so I'd be surprised if his act could be considered sexual harassment.  She loses nothing by not going by the stables to listen to his shit.  Plus she just has to report him, which she has yet to try.  

[OtterMommy]

2 minutes ago, Winston9-DT3 said:

I have had that workplace training but I don't recall anything about customers, though if I google it (funnily) the links are all about customers harassing workers, not vice versa.  I just googled 'what is sexual harassment' for that definition I pasted in above.  Duke has no power over Kate so I'd be surprised if his act could be considered sexual harassment.  She loses nothing by not going by the stables to listen to his shit.  Plus she just has to report him, which she has yet to try.  

Legally...yeah, it's not sexual harassment.  But I just cannot accept that, as terms of his employment, there is not some clause in his contract (or in the policies of the camp or whatever) about inappropriate behavior with camp visitors.  It seemed like this was a therapeutic camp (even if we saw no actual therapy happening) and, trust me, there would be VERY CLEAR boundaries between employees and visitors.

[Guest]

Oh, I agree.  She should get him in trouble with his employer.  I just don't think he's breaking any laws.  

[ShadowFacts]

18 minutes ago, OtterMommy said:

Legally...yeah, it's not sexual harassment.  But I just cannot accept that, as terms of his employment, there is not some clause in his contract (or in the policies of the camp or whatever) about inappropriate behavior with camp visitors.  It seemed like this was a therapeutic camp (even if we saw no actual therapy happening) and, trust me, there would be VERY CLEAR boundaries between employees and visitors.

He said to her that she was sexy as hell, and she should come to his cabin #x, and that this is happening.  That sounds like soliciting sex.  I'm not talking about in a legal sense, but he is not talking about discussing books or playing chess, he is seeking sex from a customer of his employer, on the premises.  That should get him a swift ticket out of a place that caters to vulnerable people. 

[OtterMommy]

Just now, ShadowFacts said:

He said to her that she was sexy as hell, and she should come to his cabin #x, and that this is happening.  That sounds like soliciting sex.  I'm not talking about in a legal sense, but he is not talking about discussing books or playing chess, he is seeking sex from a customer of his employer, on the premises.  That should get him a swift ticket out of a place that caters to vulnerable people. 

Agree.  Heck, even if there weren't any formal guidelines about employee/guest relations, that alone should get him fired.

My own little take: It really didn't seem like this was the first time Horse Dick had played out this routine.  Just sayin'....

[CofCinci]

Transcript:

Boyfriend?

Brother.

Good.

I have a boyfriend. Well, actually, fiancé.

Oh. Well... we'll see.

Hey, Tobe, it's me. Uh, these people are insane, and I am seriously gonna need you to come and get me right n... What is wrong with you?

Your voice is annoying my horses.

Well, your horses can deal.

Yeah, well, I can't. Your voice is annoying me, too.

No, no, no. Hold on. Okay, um, I am not gonna be insulted by the fat camp horse guy today... I'm just not. I need to get the hell up out of this place.

Good for you. This place is... pointless.

I didn't say that.

It's a total waste of money. So we're fat. I'm fat, you're fat. So what? What difference does it make? It's cells. We just have more of 'em. Actually, it's more than that... People come here, lose a few pounds, learn how to roast some Brussels sprouts. And then they go home thinking they're transformed. But deep down... they're the same. It's a joke. People trying to change their lives is not a joke. People don't change. You know it and I know it. That's why you're quitting.

(horse whinnies)

You're still here.

I know what you were doing before, with the whole grabbing my phone and being a dick thing. You were being hard on me so I would push myself. And I think I do I need to deal with the stuff that I've been avoiding. You know, see what's behind the weight. So... thanks. For being a dick. I needed it.

Like I said, your voice was annoying my horses. That's why I grabbed it. And I wasn't being a dick. I am a dick. Oh. That said... ... I'm glad you're staying. You see, 'cause I happen to think that you are as sexy as hell. And I'm in cabin 13. When you're ready.

No, thanks.

No, you don't see... See, you don't see it yet. But this? This is happening.

Oh, but it's not.

Oh, but it is.

N-no, it's not.

Oh... (sighs)