What if I'm not applying it at all, I'm acknowledging it's existence? It was you who said women weren't conditioned in America in 2018. You deny that it exists today. It appears that you think that our culture equally empowers men and women.

It is a violation of her personhood to start with the assumption of consent and act accordingly.

So a woman needs extra guardianship because she's been conditioned to be "nice" but he only needs it if he forces women to have sex with him. The bars are pretty uneven. Oh wait, uneven bars don't exist. Nevermind.

If you deny that internalized misogyny is an actual thing, then yes - you lack understanding.

No, I didn't miss women saying they are afraid of saying "no". Is that an indication of a problem with the women or a problem with the men? I have no idea what your point is.

And women are capable of consenting and being empowered. The answer, in the face of the result of conditioning to remove our power, is not to reiterate the argument used at the beginning of time to strip us of our voice, but to advocate for changing the culture of conditioning of both men and women. It's funny how nobody says about the man, that if he doesn't know how to behave then he needs extra guardianship. Or maybe not so funny.

Then you don't understand what internalized misogyny is.

Nope. There are always some women who will naturally be less empowered than others. But we cannot on the one hand condone (through pretense of equality) the conditioning into weakness that women have experienced throughout centuries and then on the other, expect them to be empowered. Let's ACTUALLY CHANGE our culture to empower women. EXPLICITLY. It's cruel and a form of gaslighting to train them to be one way and then expect them to be different. Your repeated talk of "extra guardianship" is creepy. Truly. There is no rational conversation possible here if you keep throwing that out there. You will be taught to be helpless. You've now proven that you're helpless. You need extra supervision because you're helpless.

And in CHURCHES. How many advocates to we have - on this site - who talk about complementarianism as if it puts men and women on equal footing, empowering them both, equally. Except that the man "has the final say". How many people belong, or condone, fundamentalist ideas of what "good"/"modest" women should wear - where it is exclusively men in charge and making the rules. I swear, it's like all of a sudden we're in bizarro world where men and women are actually equal. Is that how people go to their happy-place? Just pretend it's all OK and continue to heap the responsibility onto the women's back. ETA: in orange

AND. I detest that this conversation centers so much around women and how they behave - even though their behavior, bad or good, has nothing to do with violating someone else. This conversation should be about men. Why/How have we conditioned men to approach this situation with entitlement? He isn't asking for consent, consent is assumed.

This isn't sexual assault. It shouldn't fall under #metoo. It is an extremely important conversation to have nontheless. I'm actually appalled by the idea that seems to be coming out of the conversation that if a woman doesn't know how to handle herself by immediately saying "no" and walking out, she should not be allowed to be unsupervised. It's as if internalized misogyny isn't a real thing. We are all just raised in families and in cultures where women are empowered just the same as men. Nothing to see here. Move along.

I'm not out to pick your analogy apart, but the basic premise of your analogy doesn't work. Someone squatting in an apartment that you own is not the same, in any way except that it isn't legal, as someone being in the country that I am a citizen of. There just are not similarities. I don't *own* my country in the same way that I would own an apartment that I rent out. Their existence isn't taking anything from me.

Compassion does not appear to rank high as a value for many Americans.

Yes - I hated it. My one son was using it in the co-op we joined - against my better judgment but I digress - and he wasn't able to keep up with the reading so I purchased the audio version. It was painful. She was always inserting herself into history. I noticed right away and told myself to say nothing, maybe the kids wouldn't notice - but they did. It could have been a drinking game.

Just a reminder.

To your update, OP. First, I want to say that I'm not in any way trying to make it sound like you've done something wrong with her. I think in these discussions it's so automatic that the mom feels inappropriate guilt. Don't. You are a good mom. We all make mistakes - whether or not you have here is not really relevant IMO. Second, while I appreciate the advice to just shut her complaints down and don't let her beat you up - I think that's just a first step in order to put up an appropriate boundary for yourself. At some point, hopefully soon, you need to start thinking about what kind of relationship you will have with her. You might want to consider going to counseling with her so that you can help her work through the negative feelings she has towards you. You know that she has a mental illness and I think it isn't fair to leave it only up to her to get it treated. You presumably wouldn't do that for other maladies.

Typical? No. Is it possible that she sees something you don't? Sure. Possible. Is it possible that she is just immature and will grow out of it or have a light-bulb moment if you just ignore it? Possible, but not likely. Personally, if this is the same child that you have posted about having a horrible attitude and always feeling aggrieved, I think it sounds like she will need help to change it. When she isn't having a negative ranting moment, you might gently bring up the subject of her unhappiness, express sorrow on her behalf, and suggest you both look into getting some professional assistance to work through those feelings. I think just ignoring it expecting her to heal herself is cruel. She sounds miserable.

I know that this is a really difficult place to be but I encourage you to push through the struggle, no matter where you end up in the end. There is a belief by some that not only is this kind of judgment allowed, but that it is required in order to be faithful.

And the thing that makes it so frustrating is the justification: Sending 2 emails is really not asking too much. Copying and pasting into a flyer really isn't that big of a deal. It isn't too much to ask to have a vegetarian option. It isn't fair to pay for dessert if you don't eat it. It is only right to be able to return stuff that doesn't fit. All of those statements are pretty reasonable. But they eliminate the responsibility of the group members and put it all on the volunteer organizer. In that context, they are no longer reasonable. ETA: Oh, and this whole stay up all night because it's all about the people & relationships - gag me with a spoon. Volunteers are people, too, with relationships of their own OUTSIDE of their volunteer duties and group members would be wise to remember that.

That is funny

??

I'm glad that you're such a superstar. I can tell you feel really good about that. That's really fantastic.

IME Zoloft increased appetite. I don't remember if it suppressed it right away and then changed or if it was like that from the get-go. But I believe that these meds affect people differently so YMMV - I definitely believe it can affect appetite.

Exactly. And all this aversion to FB because they try to hook you in as if that's something new and frightening. You know, like soap operas and serial stories in print or on the radio. Even books - people used to think that people would stop talking to each other because they'd be too busy reading books. The horror. Use FB or don't use FB. But don't make it someone else's problem that you don't like the current means of communication.

It depends. If it is simply to confirm meeting times, then it's probably fine. But if she isn't getting ANY information in any other way, it's probably not just meeting times. Although honestly, confirming meeting times via text every week would also drive me batty. If someone opted out of the communication method that a group I led was using, I'd be very irritated to have to re-iterate all the communication with said person when they called/texted/emailed. Because it's just one. more. thing. that I'd have to do, knowing that there are people who don't appreciate the work I put in. Which is apparent in the comments like "That is a hardship to the leader?" Because, yes, it can be. And if it is, it doesn't mean they are a bad leader. Sometimes people are bad group-members.