Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I said risk assessment based on statistics. But you judge someone based on merit.

Except it's a very poor measure of risk assessment. I say this because using being related (without even having to differentiate between genders) as the primary criteria will already deliver a much more accurate measure of risk and additionally a gender based risk assessment engenders a false sense of security in the gender deemed less threatening, which in the case of the abuse of boys is a very dangerous presumption to make.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

It didn't bother you that there wasn't a lot of scrutinisation when it was a 60-40 split against men, why is scrutinisation so important now?

My whole point is that scrutinisation is required.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet wearing a jersey makes me more likely to be a hooligan. Somehow.

Because it automatically associates you with a statistic.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'll take your refusal to answer my question on if you agree with discriminating against women candidates, of child baring age, as a yes. At least you're more consistent than bwalsh, in this regard.

Or you could read where I said the law was there got good reason.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Except it's a very poor measure of risk assessment. I say this because using being related (without even having to differentiate between genders) as the primary criteria will already deliver a much more accurate measure of risk and additionally a gender based risk assessment engenders a false sense of security in the gender deemed less threatening, which in the case of the abuse of boys is a very dangerous presumption to make.

Which is why I say you judge people on their merits.

If 2 men are at a playground taking photos, one is with his children laughing and the other is outside peering in with a zoom lens. Who would you be more wary of? The father as he's a relative or the stranger with no aparant reason to be there?

Zulu

smash wrote: »

My whole point is that scrutinisation is required.

The difference being, you appear support "scrutinisation" at a macro level, where as the rest of us (bwalsh excluded) we are saying that's wrong.
And we are providing other examples where prejudice at a macro level is wrong - racism, sexism, etc..

smash

Zulu wrote: »

The difference being, you appear support "scrutinisation" at a macro level, where as the rest of us (bwalsh excluded) we are saying that's wrong.
And we are providing other examples where prejudice at a macro level is wrong - racism, sexism, etc..

I fear you don't understand what macro means if you think I support it on a macro level. Especially considering you've been telling me previously that I'm blanket casting assumptions.

Zulu

smash wrote: »

I fear you don't understand what macro means if you think I support it on a macro level. Especially considering you've been telling me previously that I'm blanket casting assumptions.

:rolleyes:

Fear not, like my ability to read which you previously questioned, I also know the meaning of macro. I've added a like for your information, as it would appear you don't have the same grasp of its meaning.

Let me walk your through it: you support prejudicing all men on the basis that some men are sexual predators. That's "scrutiny" on a "macro" level.

Piliger

Zulu wrote: »

Let me walk your through it: you support prejudicing all men on the basis that some men are sexual predators. That's "scrutiny" on a "macro" level.

That's bigotry and prejudice in action, you should say. It is institutionalising bigotry and prejudice on the back of false and dishonest statistics and using false statistics to prejudice men without any real foundation.

boiledsweets

If he had an okay reputation and wasnt wild or anything i would consider hiring a teenage boy or girl,the gender wouldnt be an issue,but having said that i would probably just pick a girl,just out of habit..

I used to do babysitting when i was younger,boys generally dont do babysitting,and wouldnt offer,it wouldnt be a boy thing,unless it was for their younger siblings etc..Usually boys wouldnt offer for that sort of thing..

Its just the way it is,ingrained i guess..

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Less said about the other points you ignored the better.

Ignoring and denial being the rule.

The distortion and wilful ignorance of statistics and risk as a tool to prejudice Men is rampant and evident in this thread.
If one rape each year were committed per ten thousand red headed males per year, while two rapes each year were committed per ten thousand black headed males per year, would that justify women looking suspiciously at black haired men and would it justify society looking suspiciously at black haired men who walk along dark roads at night ? or sit in parks as women walk or run there ?
It is this kind of nonsensical and ignorant failure to grasp the meaning of risk that is being used to prejudice men and is preventing positive male role models for young people, and hurting our young people across the board.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

That's bigotry and prejudice in action, you should say. It is institutionalising bigotry and prejudice on the back of false and dishonest statistics and using false statistics to prejudice men without any real foundation.

Sorry, which false statistics?

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

My whole point is that scrutinisation is required.

Curiously, you only started looking for scrutinisation when women as abusers began to be discussed (if this is incorrect, please point out where this was so important before). As such, I believe you're just changing the goalposts since the facts now being presented contradict your earlier thesis.

Or you could read where I said the law was there got good reason.

So if something is illegal it must be bad and if not legislated for it must not be bad. Can you think for yourself?

smash wrote: »

Which is why I say you judge people on their merits.

Actually you've been arguing for the last few pages that we should judge people based upon their gender.

If 2 men are at a playground taking photos, one is with his children laughing and the other is outside peering in with a zoom lens. Who would you be more wary of? The father as he's a relative or the stranger with no aparant reason to be there?

But that's not the discussion. We're not discussing men being discriminated against because they behave in a sinister way when in contact with children, but men being discriminated against because they are simply men in contact with children.

If a woman were to do that in a playground, I think we'd all be suspicious of her motives too (at least I would hope so, but there's been a bit of denial here the moment women were raised as potential abusers), so what you're presenting now, is nothing more than a straw man.

nucker

smash wrote: »

Which is why I say you judge people on their merits.

If 2 men are at a playground taking photos, one is with his children laughing and the other is outside peering in with a zoom lens. Who would you be more wary of? The father as he's a relative or the stranger with no aparant reason to be there?

It all depends on the zoom lens really, if it is a massive lens and hiding in between the bushes, I would be wary of that man. The "apparent" reason could be that the photographer might be commissioned by the dad/family to take a photo at a different point of view. No two photographers point of view are the same, please don't feed any hysteria by jumping to conclusion, it is counter productive in tackling paedophilia. The photographer could be just simply photographing the park for candid shots

It would be also be understandable if that man wasn't commissioned by the family to take photos and taking photos of children in playground, but like I said, it doesn't help to jump to conclusions. Yes, it would be in the interest to get the Police involved if you have your suspicions about people. But going to harm people just because you have that suspicion is damn right irritating. I'm sure that everyone has the protection of other people's (and their own) children at heart.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Curiously, you only started looking for scrutinisation when women as abusers began to be discussed (if this is incorrect, please point out where this was so important before). As such, I believe you're just changing the goalposts since the facts now being presented contradict your earlier thesis.

Changing the goalposts? I've been talking about the statistics of men being the abusers for a while now, before you mentioned women.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So if something is illegal it must be bad and if not legislated for it must not be bad. Can you think for yourself?

I never said that now did I. I said the women's workplace law existed for a good reason.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you've been arguing for the last few pages that we should judge people based upon their gender.

No, I was saying that people are judged based on statistics they fall into. I've also said numerous times that it's unfortunate.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But that's not the discussion. We're not discussing men being discriminated against because they behave in a sinister way when in contact with children, but men being discriminated against because they are simply men in contact with children.

I never said sinister way. You brought up the stuff about most abusers being relatives, which was you sidetracking the issue. I gave a scenario and asked you to judge based on it... a relative vs a stranger.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If a woman were to do that in a playground, I think we'd all be suspicious of her motives too (at least I would hope so, but there's been a bit of denial here the moment women were raised as potential abusers), so what you're presenting now, is nothing more than a straw man.

No, what I resented was a scenario and asked you a question based on it given your stance of the abusers mostly being relatives. I already mentioned long ago in this thread that if it was a women people probably wouldn't notice and linked to a thread about the scenario in the photography forum.

nucker wrote: »

No two photographers point of view are the same, please don't feed any hysteria by jumping to conclusion, it is counter productive in tackling paedophilia.

It's a fictional scenario, I'm not jumping to conclusions and have commented on it before in here and the photography forum. I gave the scenario and asked a question as explained above.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Changing the goalposts? I've been talking about the statistics of men being the abusers for a while now, before you mentioned women.

Yes, which you didn't want introduced into the discussion and as a result you are changing goalposts to deal with the inconsistencies in your logic this introduction has highlighted.

I never said that now did I. I said the women's workplace law existed for a good reason.

Well if that wasn't what you were implying, what point were you attempting to make then?

No, I was saying that people are judged based on statistics they fall into. I've also said numerous times that it's unfortunate.

Unfortunate, but supported by you as a necessary evil, yet you also feel we judge people on their merits. We can't do both, which is it?

I never said sinister way.

No, you just put forward one scenario that was blatantly sinister, thus constructing your straw man.

You brought up the stuff about most abusers being relatives, which was you sidetracking the issue.

Not at all, you were the one who has been waxing lyrical about targeting 'high risk' groups and I simply pointed out that a 'relative' is in a higher risk group than a 'man', so as to demonstrate how ridiculous your reasoning was.

I gave a scenario and asked you to judge based on it... a relative vs a stranger.

And stranger is the operative word, not man. If a strange woman were to start taking photos on a playground, I would be equally suspicious of her motivations.

No, what I resented was a scenario and asked you a question based on it given your stance of the abusers mostly being relatives. I already mentioned long ago in this thread that if it was a women people probably wouldn't notice and linked to a thread about the scenario in the photography forum.

Problem is they should notice; and as I pointed out, relying upon simplistic gender based prejudices ends up blinding you from the dangers of those whom we are not prejudiced against. This is one of the numerous reasons why your and bwalsh's position is fundamentally harmful, even to children.

It's a fictional scenario, I'm not jumping to conclusions and have commented on it before in here and the photography forum. I gave the scenario and asked a question as explained above.

And I responded - I'd be more suspicious of the stranger; and not because of their gender.

nucker

smash wrote: »

It's a fictional scenario, I'm not jumping to conclusions and have commented on it before in here and the photography forum. I gave the scenario and asked a question as explained above.

Fictional or in real life regardless, I hate it when people jump to conclusions about other people. Fair enough, people want to protect their kids, which I can imagine, but they should take their suspicions to the proper authorities

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yes, which you didn't want introduced into the discussion and as a result you are changing goalposts to deal with the inconsistencies in your logic this introduction has highlighted.

Didn't want introduced? Quoting stats on women has nothing to do with the conversation and doesn't change the stats on men.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well if that wasn't what you were implying, what point were you attempting to make then?

Like I already explained. The law is there for a good reason which it to protect women in the workplace. There is no law that says men can't be in contact with children or be childminders so the women's workplace law has no place in this discussion for any comparison reasons.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unfortunate, but supported by you as a necessary evil,

Live I've said over and over. It is unfortunate, and supporting parents being on their toes regarding paedophilia does not equal supporting discrimination against men.

The Corinthian wrote: »

yet you also feel we judge people on their merits. We can't do both, which is it?

You can certainly do both. Like how you keep referring to African American's and crime rates. You recognize the statistics but you don't judge them all the same do you?

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you just put forward one scenario that was blatantly sinister, thus constructing your straw man.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not at all, you were the one who has been waxing lyrical about targeting 'high risk' groups

I never said men were a high risk group, and I never said to target them. All I said was that extra scrutiny is required in certain circumstances.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I simply pointed out that a 'relative' is in a higher risk group than a 'man', so as to demonstrate how ridiculous your reasoning was.

But yet it didn't change the figures of male vs female did it? It's just a sub statistic, which in itself still see's a higher percentage of males.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And stranger is the operative word, not man. If a strange woman were to start taking photos on a playground, I would be equally suspicious of her motivations.

But that's not what I asked you.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Problem is they should notice; and as I pointed out, relying upon simplistic gender based prejudices ends up blinding you from the dangers of those whom we are not prejudiced against. This is one of the numerous reasons why your and bwalsh's position is fundamentally harmful, even to children.

My 'position' harms nobody, because I judge people based on behavior and circumstance and not gender, race, age etc.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And I responded - I'd be more suspicious of the stranger; and not because of their gender.

Fine. But I did specify that the stranger was male as that's what we were discussing.

nucker wrote: »

Fictional or in real life regardless, I hate it when people jump to conclusions about other people. Fair enough, people want to protect their kids, which I can imagine, but they should take their suspicions to the proper authorities

Isn't that adding fuel to the fire? Call the cops... someone is taking photos which is not actually illegal...

nucker

smash wrote: »

Isn't that adding fuel to the fire? Call the cops... someone is taking photos which is not actually illegal...

Probably, but I can't even think as to why you want to make up a fictional scenario of what happens if you see a "stranger" in a park with a big zoom lens, anyone can be innocently taking a photo of a bird and wildlife that happens to be in the direction of the playground, are you not adding fuel to the fire to those who might react to nothing but an innocent photoshoot?

The Corinthian

nucker wrote: »

Fictional or in real life regardless, I hate it when people jump to conclusions about other people. Fair enough, people want to protect their kids, which I can imagine, but they should take their suspicions to the proper authorities

Unfortunately the hysteria surrounding this area has reached such a level that even the proper authorities are not immune to it, as was linked earlier.

This is the problem, it's gone way beyond gossiping neighbours and has become so acute that it is literally resulting in a society where men won't go near a child for fear of being branded a paedophile.

nucker

The Corinthian wrote: »

Unfortunately the hysteria surrounding this area has reached such a level that even the proper authorities are not immune to it, as was linked earlier.

This is the problem, it's gone way beyond gossiping neighbours and has become so acute that it is literally resulting in a society where men won't go near a child for fear of being branded a paedophile.

I've heard of so many similar situations like that link, I've even heard that paediatricians having their surgeries ransacked because the people thought "it meant paedophile", I mean, who on earth would advertise themselves as paedophiles? Not even the paedophiles themselves would do that

smash

nucker wrote: »

Probably, but I can't even think as to why you want to make up a fictional scenario of what happens if you see a "stranger" in a park with a big zoom lens, anyone can be innocently taking a photo of a bird and wildlife that happens to be in the direction of the playground, are you not adding fuel to the fire to those who might react to nothing but an innocent photoshoot?

Ok maybe you haven't been following the thread recently. The current discussion was about the statistics that show men are a much higher percentage of abusers than women are. TC's point was that it's usually a family member more than a stranger that abuses the children. I made up a scenario of 2 men taking photos but one is a stranger and one is a relative of the child and asked him who he'd be more wary of. It really has nothing to do with taking a photo, that was just the fictional scenario.

nucker

smash wrote: »

Ok maybe you haven't been following the thread recently. The current discussion was about the statistics that show men are a much higher percentage of abusers than women are. TC's point was that it's usually a family member more than a stranger that abuses the children. I made up a scenario of 2 men taking photos but one is a stranger and one is a relative of the child and asked him who he'd be more wary of. It really has nothing to do with taking a photo, that was just the fictional scenario.

So? Again, another scenario for you. Say a very rare animal or one of their behaviour (the animal that is) was considered to be newsworthy and it just happened to be in the direction of the playground, would you take a photo of that incident or not because you were scared of being labelled as paedophile. Note, that this shot might lead to instant world fame as a photographer for capturing it, with all the silver lining that comes with world fame. If you didn't take the shot, the scenario, you would lose everything that you know and love, be penniless for the rest of your life.

Choose wisely

smash

nucker wrote: »

So? Again, another scenario for you. Say a very rare animal or one of their behaviour (the animal that is) was considered to be newsworthy and it just happened to be in the direction of the playground, would you take a photo of that incident or not because you were scared of being labelled as paedophile. Note, that this shot might lead to instant world fame as a photographer for capturing it, with all the silver lining that comes with world fame. If you didn't take the shot, the scenario, you would lose everything that you know and love, be penniless for the rest of your life.

Choose wisely

Jesus... I'm talking about someone photographing a child. Nothing more... no rare animals. There was a point to the fictional scenario and it was that they were photographing the child. :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Ok maybe you haven't been following the thread recently. The current discussion was about the statistics that show men are a much higher percentage of abusers than women are. TC's point was that it's usually a family member more than a stranger that abuses the children. I made up a scenario of 2 men taking photos but one is a stranger and one is a relative of the child and asked him who he'd be more wary of. It really has nothing to do with taking a photo, that was just the fictional scenario.

Now you're telling porkies.

You and bwalsh have been defending the use of discrimination against men as a group because statistically men are a far larger risk (even though you have changed your line recently and now claim it should be on merit).

I pointed out that if you really wanted to use statistics, then you'd be better off targeting relatives, who as a group are statistically an even higher risk. I did not do this because I approve of such a system, but to point out how pointless this kind of profiling ultimately is, and have already said this, so please do not misrepresent what I have written.

Then you chose to pick a scenario whereby two men, a stranger and a relative, are taking photos of children in a playground, as if this somehow proves something. I chose to be more suspicious of the person (note not gender specific) who is the stranger as they have far less legitimate reason to be doing this - because this is my position, not some moronic profiling approach because it makes things nice and simple for people who don't think for themselves and are easily swayed by popular media without questioning it.

Indeed, the very fact that the stranger and not the relative (who is part of a higher risk group than unrelated men like the stranger) is more suspect, is yet another reason why using such bigoted generalities is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

There are practical advantages to profiling, but these are more often than not very limited, and come with very real consequences for those being profiled and, in the end, those we claim to be protecting using such methods.

nucker

smash wrote: »

Jesus... I'm talking about someone photographing a child. Nothing more... no rare animals. There was a point to the fictional scenario and it was that they were photographing the child. :rolleyes:

Well, I am talking about the scenario of you saying that if a stranger was photographing with a zoom length, how would you know if that person had take a photo of a child? Are they going to show you?

DamoKen

smash wrote: »

Ok maybe you haven't been following the thread recently. The current discussion was about the statistics that show men are a much higher percentage of abusers than women are. TC's point was that it's usually a family member more than a stranger that abuses the children. I made up a scenario of 2 men taking photos but one is a stranger and one is a relative of the child and asked him who he'd be more wary of. It really has nothing to do with taking a photo, that was just the fictional scenario.

Well not quite, the thread was originally as the name suggests Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models? about the very real fear of being branded a paedophile if a male goes anywhere near children, even if a child is in obvious distress (i.e. lost in a supermarket etc).

The current very off topic discussion (imo) has nothing to do with the original premise and has been primarily driven by two posters of which you are one.

Have to agreed with The Corinthian I think who said it a few pages back, this thread which I believe was an interesting discussion on a very real problem has been ruined.

Although having said that, at least both of you, quite unintentionally I would think, have highlighted exactly why these fears exist and are propagated.

Personally I would have preferred if you wish to hammer home page after page justifications for discrimination based on one group of statistics that ignore any other group that you did it in a separate thread as this one, at least in relation to it's original intent is dead.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Now you're telling porkies.

No, you're probably just taking it up wrong again.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You and bwalsh have been defending the use of discrimination against men as a group because statistically men are a far larger risk (even though you have changed your line recently and now claim it should be on merit).

Not defending, just pointing out the reasoning behind it. I'm not changing my line, I'd always judge every scenario differently as would anyone else. Like a clown at a circus offering your child sweets vs a man in a long coat on the side of a road offering your child sweets... you get it yet?

The Corinthian wrote: »

I pointed out that if you really wanted to use statistics, then you'd be better off targeting relatives, who as a group are statistically an even higher risk. I did not do this because I approve of such a system, but to point out how pointless this kind of profiling ultimately is, and have already said this, so please do not misrepresent what I have written.

But little has been mentioned of relatives until you mentioned it. People generally don't profile their relatives because they like to think they know them better. Even if that is a false hope in some cases.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then you chose to pick a scenario whereby two men, a stranger and a relative, are taking photos of children in a playground, as if this somehow proves something. I chose to be more suspicious of the person (note not gender specific) who is the stranger as they have far less legitimate reason to be doing this - because this is my position, not some moronic profiling approach because it makes things nice and simple for people who don't think for themselves and are easily swayed by popular media without questioning it.

Point proven though, people don't profile relatives as easy.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, the very fact that the stranger and not the relative (who is part of a higher risk group than unrelated men like the stranger) is more suspect, is yet another reason why using such bigoted generalities is, for lack of a better word, dumb.

So you're a bigot now too because even though you know the relative is higher risk you'd be more wary of the stranger... right? I mean that's the kind of answer you've given to most of my points, you know turn it around and twist the words so you can point a finger.

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

Well not quite, the thread was originally as the name suggests Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models? about the very real fear of being branded a paedophile if a male goes anywhere near children, even if a child is in obvious distress (i.e. lost in a supermarket etc).

And the answer was yes, clearly it is. If there was to be no discussion then it could have been closed after a few posts.

DamoKen wrote: »

The current very off topic discussion (imo) has nothing to do with the original premise and has been primarily driven by two posters of which you are one.

Have to agreed with The Corinthian I think who said it a few pages back, this thread which I believe was an interesting discussion on a very real problem has been ruined.

The reasons behind the claim have nothing to do with the premise of the thread?

DamoKen wrote: »

Although having said that, at least both of you, quite unintentionally I would think, have highlighted exactly why these fears exist and are propagated.

I said at the start why these fears were in place. The discussion escalated from there. Mainly because I've been branded a bigot which is absurd to say the least.

DamoKen wrote: »

Personally I would have preferred if you wish to hammer home page after page justifications for discrimination based on one group of statistics that ignore any other group that you did it in a separate thread as this one, at least in relation to it's original intent is dead.

So what would you prefer? Did you forget to finish that sentence?... there doesn't seem to be a point to it. And what other statistics am I ignoring? And what other thread are you talking about now?

hardCopy

Just because the majority of abusers are male does not mean the majority of males are abusers.

Vigilance, increased wariness, on-your-toes are just PC terms for discrimination.

Men can't even question the status quo in public for fear of people questioning their motives.

Saying that increased caution and paranoia is "no bad thing" is clearly wrong. The lack of male role models is a bad thing.

A balance needs to be found and the current arrangement is not balanced.

smash

hardCopy wrote: »

Just because the majority of abusers are male does not mean the majority of males are abusers.

Nobody said that and I don't think anyone thinks like that either.

hardCopy wrote: »

Vigilance, increased wariness, on-your-toes are just PC terms for discrimination.

Only if you make them.

hardCopy wrote: »

Men can't even question the status quo in public for fear of people questioning their motives.

So instead of not doing it for fear of questioning, why not just do it and if someone questions then just set them straight! Non action is as bad as anything else. I'd even say it indirectly supports the discrimination.

hardCopy wrote: »

Saying that increased caution and paranoia is "no bad thing" is clearly wrong. The lack of male role models is a bad thing.

A balance needs to be found and the current arrangement is not balanced.

And like I just said, if you don't act yourself it's not going to change is it?

DamoKen

smash wrote: »

I said at the start why these fears were in place. The discussion escalated from there. Mainly because I've been branded a bigot which is absurd to say the least.

I think bigot might be a bit harsh but from reading your posts here you do seem to if not practise at least agree with active discrimination based on gender, however only in relation to specific instances determined by...well that's a bit unclear to be honest. From what I can make out the predominant factor is if it's a bloke it's ok to discriminate in certain unspecified conditions, better safe than sorry after all.

smash wrote: »

So what would you prefer? Did you forget to finish that sentence?... there doesn't seem to be a point to it. And what other statistics am I ignoring? And what other thread are you talking about now?

No I did not forget, I think if you read it again you will see there is a full stop preceded by a valid sentence. Not normally given to sarcasm but like for like. If you were not being sarcastic apologies, no I did not forget.

In answer to your question regarding statistics. If you continually bring up statistics (which from what I've read are more of the "everyone knows" variety) be at least prepared to counter rather than wilfully ignore other groups of statistics, i.e. 40% of boys abused are by females etc because it does not fit in with your argument.

Your last question regarding what other thread? If you read my last post again you will see the answer.

hardCopy

smash wrote: »

Nobody said that and I don't think anyone thinks like that either.

But you act as if men are a high risk group, statistically they are not.

smash wrote: »

Only if you make them.

If you treat people negatively because of one arbitrary thing that they have no control over, that's discrimination.

smash wrote: »

So instead of not doing it for fear of questioning, why not just do it and if someone questions then just set them straight! Non action is as bad as anything else. I'd even say it indirectly supports the discrimination.

I'd encourage any man who wants to help a local sports club to go ahead. How does one set people straight? You can't prove a negative.

smash wrote: »

And like I just said, if you don't act yourself it's not going to change is it?

And how does one change that if parents don't want male coaches, babysitters, teachers etc?

nucker

Smash, as I as I concerned, if anyone commits any sexual crimes towards children, and both genders have a part of being involved in the crime, it is well documented that women have been known for whatever reasons to keep quiet while their partners have been sexually abusing kids and actually condoned their behaviour, don't you think then that both genders are as guilty or high risk to children being abused? Or do you look upon men as being high risk because they have a certain genitalia?

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

I think bigot might be a bit harsh but from reading your posts here you do seem to if not practise at least agree with active discrimination based on gender, however only in relation to specific instances determined by...well that's a bit unclear to be honest. From what I can make out the predominant factor is if it's a bloke it's ok to discriminate in certain unspecified conditions, better safe than sorry after all.

We're talking about situations involving men where someone might get the wrong idea and why they get the wrong idea. The main reason is because of media coverage of abuse cases where it seems to be constantly men who are the abusers. Subconsciously this WILL affect how people think about others in certain circumstances.

For what it's worth, situations mentioned here are the likes of coaches - Nearly every coach in both my sons clubs are male and I have never once thought any of them to be paedophiles. babysitters - Male babysitters I've used have been my dad, my wife's dad and my brother. Apart from that it's our mothers or 1 girl that lives in our estate.

DamoKen wrote: »

In answer to your question regarding statistics. If you continually bring up statistics (which from what I've read are more of the "everyone knows" variety) be at least prepared to counter rather than wilfully ignore other groups of statistics, i.e. 40% of boys abused are by females etc because it does not fit in with your argument.

So 40% of boys abused are by females... this still makes males the higher percentage. This statistic doesn't discount the original statement.

hardCopy wrote: »

But you act as if men are a high risk group, statistically they are not.

Higher risk does not equal high risk.

hardCopy wrote: »

If you treat people negatively because of one arbitrary thing that they have no control over, that's discrimination.

But it's not a case of treating everyone negatively, it's circumstantial.

hardCopy wrote: »

I'd encourage any man who wants to help a local sports club to go ahead. How does one set people straight? You can't prove a negative.

If someone questions your motives, you tell then they're wrong. It's easy.

hardCopy wrote: »

And how does one change that if parents don't want male coaches, babysitters, teachers etc?

Then they don't hire them or they remove their children from the club. Let them away with it, there are multiples more who think differently than idiots like that.

smash

nucker wrote: »

Smash, as I as I concerned, if anyone commits any sexual crimes towards children, and both genders have a part of being involved in the crime, it is well documented that women have been known for whatever reasons to keep quiet while their partners have been sexually abusing kids and actually condoned their behaviour, don't you think then that both genders are as guilty or high risk to children being abused? Or do you look upon men as being high risk because they have a certain genitalia?

We're not talking about dual partner crimes here, and even still it doesn't change the stats much. And stop mudying the waters with these kid of statements. What you're talking about is an abuser whose wife/gf is afraid of them. Therefor they have more than likely been abused by them too.

hardCopy

smash wrote: »

Higher risk does not equal high risk.

Higher risk than who? Women, unochs? What level of risk justifies discrimination?

smash wrote: »

But it's not a case of treating everyone negatively, it's circumstantial.

Not everyone, just all males.

smash wrote: »

If someone questions your motives, you tell then they're wrong. It's easy.

If it was easy we wouldn't be having this conversation.

smash wrote: »

Then they don't hire them or they remove their children from the club. Let them away with it, there are multiples more who think differently than idiots like that.

See above.

walshb

hardCopy wrote: »

Just because the majority of abusers are male does not mean the majority of males are abusers.
.

And nobody has ever remotely claimed this to be true. The majority of males are not paedophiles. The majority of paedophioles are males. That is what is being siad here.

DamoKen

walshb wrote: »

And nobody has ever remotely claimed this to be true. The majority of males are not paedophiles. The majority of paedophioles are males. That is what is being siad here.

And therefore as you have previously stated it is ok to discriminate against ALL males because of this, hence illustrating exactly what prevents many males from engaging in any activity be it sport, education etc that involves children not their own.

walshb

DamoKen wrote: »

And therefore as you have previously stated it is ok to discriminate against ALL males because of this, hence illustrating exactly what prevents many males from engaging in any activity be it sport, education etc that involves children not their own.

Well, like I said, in certain circumstances I do not have an issue with gender discrimination. This is one scenario.

BTW, how does it prevent them engaging or applying for roles with children? It's not a blanket ban on them being allowed to work with children. Just maybe more scrutinisation and vetting before being cleared to work.

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

hence illustrating exactly what prevents many males from engaging in any activity be it sport, education etc that involves children not their own.

Even thinking of this statement. If you're not willing to participate then someone else will. I don't really think it prevents positive role models in society and in fact you could consider it the opposite, that it encourages people who actually have the courage to say they will do it despite any supposed hysteria. These are the people you want your children to look up to being honest, not someone whose afraid.

hardCopy

walshb wrote: »

And nobody has ever remotely claimed this to be true. The majority of males are not paedophiles. The majority of paedophioles are males. That is what is being siad here.

Then why treat all men as a risk?

DamoKen

smash wrote: »

So 40% of boys abused are by females... this still makes males the higher percentage. This statistic doesn't discount the original statement.

I only included this statistic as you asked what other groups of statistics I was referring to. And once again you seem to maintain your original position. Would you prefer if it were an even 50-50 split? At least that way you could judge all with suspicion and there would be no discrimination.

I think you are not seeing the point. From the above you imply that because the statistics state 20% more abusers are male rather than female it is ok to discriminate against the larger group and ignore the smaller.

The whole point of mentioning that statistic however was to illustrate just how patently ridiculous it is to base judgements on statistics alone and use them to pre-judge an entire gender/race/religion/<insert group here>. It's not acceptable with race, it's not acceptable with religion, but apparently from the last number of pages it seems to be perfectly acceptable with one particular gender.

One would hope good judgement and common sense would play a far larger part than "statistical evidence", however the very existence of the ORIGINAL theme of the thread clearly states this is not the case.

walshb

hardCopy wrote: »

Then why treat all men as a risk?

Higher risk. Higher than women. No different to men being a higher risk when insurance companies are making up policies.

The Corinthian

DamoKen wrote: »

And therefore as you have previously stated it is ok to discriminate against ALL males because of this, hence illustrating exactly what prevents many males from engaging in any activity be it sport, education etc that involves children not their own.

This is unfortunately the position of both smash and bwalsh, although the latter was far more open with admitting it, we had to wait until this point before smash just about tipped his hand:

smash wrote: »

I believe that evidence of something based on statistics justifies the need for closer scrutinisation of the subject. Do you not? And that statement only becomes racist/sexist etc if you make it.

Since then we've been going around in circles, for example I pointed out how a frightenly high percentage of abusers of boys are female and smash's response has been to repeatedly dismiss this and consider it irrelevant - after all, if the majority of abusers are men, we need only concentrate on them.

And this is is one of the problems with using such a simplistic approach to children's safety, the potential for other sources of abuse is ignored because everyone has apparently decided that the only danger out there is men.

Then, of course, there is the question of whether it is desirable to have children effectively cocooned from any male contact (except perhaps supervised male relatives) until adulthood. And finally, there is the question of the human rights of men, which while an unpopular topic, does bare considering.

But ultimately, you're right; the thread has long since been spoiled by these two posters who, one less subtly than the other, decided that this prejudice or hysteria, is ultimately justified through some simplistic and flawed grasp of mathematics, despite the consequence or dangers of such an approach and that we should all simply just accept this.

And with that I think I might bow out, at least unless the thread improves, and leave you with this topical video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw

DamoKen

walshb wrote: »

Well, like I said, in certain circumstances I do not have an issue with gender discrimination. This is one scenario.

BTW, how does it prevent them engaging or applying for roles with children? It's not a blanket ban on them being allowed to work with children. Just maybe more scrutinisation and vetting before being cleared to work.

Sorry but this is just absurd. Again you freely admit you practise discrimination with no qualms and on the next line you ask how does it prevent them engaging in activities where you (and many others of like mind) will maybe not as openly as you, discriminate against them.

I think you have answered your own question.

And no need to be obtuse, I never suggested there is a ban. However in a culture where discrimination based on gender alone is seen as acceptable, for all intensive purposes the outcome is the same. Sure you will still get men participating but I think statistics such as the catastropic drop in male primary school teachers speak for themselves.

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

I think you are not seeing the point. From the above you imply that because the statistics state 20% more abusers are male rather than female it is ok to discriminate against the larger group and ignore the smaller.

But who's ignoring statistics now? I think you'll find it's you. We're talking about the abuse of children not just boys and I think you'll find if you combine the abuse of boys and girls you get a much higher percentage gap again. If you keep drilling down you could get to crazy stats but they mean nothing in relation to the original statement that the majority of paedophiles are men. And that under certain circumstances the stats increase again. It's like arguing that the ocean isn't mostly water because there is a percentage of other liquids in it.

And still you're arguing about the statistic. And even though we've gone head to head I still only see myself and TC are the only 2 to suggest how to make it better in society.

DamoKen

The Corinthian wrote: »

And with that I think I might bow out, at least unless the thread improves

Agreed

walshb

DamoKen wrote: »

Sorry but this is just absurd. Again you freely admit you practise discrimination with no qualms and on the next line you ask how does it prevent them engaging in activities where you (and many others of like mind) will maybe not as openly as you, discriminate against them.

I think you have answered your own question.

And no need to be obtuse, I never suggested there is a ban. However in a culture where discrimination based on gender alone is seen as acceptable, for all intensive purposes the outcome is the same. Sure you will still get men participating but I think statistics such as the catastropic drop in male primary school teachers speak for themselves.

You used the word prevent. I queried this. I don't know, but I would have asumed that this word was being used to imply "stop."

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

Sure you will still get men participating but I think statistics such as the catastropic drop in male primary school teachers speak for themselves.

And you think this has nothing to do with the facts that there is a big pay gap between now and years gone by or that the IT industry which only took off not so long ago is mostly populated by males because it's what they find interesting or more lucrative?

There are a hell of a lot more factors than a fear of being branded a pedo and you'd be crazy to think otherwise.

Zulu

Thread. Ruined.

nucker

Can't understand why people would want to advocate the need to support people who spread untrue rumours about another person when they can't clearly prove anyone is guilty of paedophilia, it makes a sad world if people go to that depth of nastiness

It is just as bad as crimes against children