Originally Posted by Natja
And . . . what I disagree with is the statement that not having that diversity would make all young women into victims of predators or get into unsuitable relationships, as I have said, this is not a reality for myself, members of my family or friends/friends of family brought up in the same way.
Natja, nobody said that.
This is what you quoted and said was offensive to you:
Originally Posted by SchrodingersCat
OK, calm down.
I didn't single you out. I know that your kid's dad is involved, you've said that before. So you're not even the kind of family I'm talking about. What I said is that IF a child doesn't have any male role model, THEN they will be more likely to latch on to some random guy who happens to be available. It doesn't need to be the guy you bring home, it can be a male teacher, a scouting leader, or the mail man for that matter.
Saying that children without male role models are "more likely" to latch onto any random guy does not equate to "making all young women into victims." It just means that a child (male or female) who doesn't have a strong male influence in their life will likely
(though not written in stone) have a predisposition
toward becoming attached to or wanting the attentions of the most convenient male that comes along. SC did not say nor imply that anyone raised without a male role model will automatically set themselves up to be victimized, but that they could very likely
look for things like guidance, authority, a father figure, stability, consistency, mentorship, etc., from someone who might possibly be unable or inappropriate to be there for them in that way. Additionally, that male not being able to be there for them does not automatically equate to being an abuser or predator. It could simply be someone who won't be around for long - nothing earth-shattering, but disappointing nonetheless. Of course, there could be the extreme of abuse and victimization, but no one said that scenario would be a given, "universal truth."
It makes logical sense to me. I don't see how it could be construed as offensive.