Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

Piliger

smash wrote: »

I'd say it's mostly because nearly every case of pedophilia involves a male abuser. And in the case of teenage boys, they're becoming sexually active. Not that it should really matter because there's a difference between molesting a child and being sexually active but I guess because of the media and statistics of male vs female abusers it's something that people think of. Which is wrong but it happens.

Which is the VERY POINT we are discussing and seemed to be going over your head.

Girls are becoming sexually active as teens too ! And your earlier point about differentiating between girl children and boy children is now irrelevant because of the very point you make above, which is that boys don't get the jobs anyway !

You talk about statistics but you chose only ONE, that it is males far more than females that abuse. But you ignore the statistic that abuse is incredibly rare and even more rare by anyone outside the family. So if parents used ACTUAL statistics they would realise that their irrational fear of boy baby sitters is ridiculous.

And here is the issue, boys generally don't get the babysitting jobs to begin with. I'd say it's mostly because of the reasons mentioned above.

Which is the very points being discussed.

Piliger

Floppybits wrote: »

Based on what happened to that guy I have decided that I wont be coaching any under age football teams and instead to telling kids who are being nuisance out the house to clear off I am going to ring the guards instead. It is just not worth putting yourself in a situation that could see you accused of something.

You are 100% right. It's not worth risking the rest of you life being destroyed.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

If a childhood with no contact with any males is what parents want, then this is what they'll get.

And as someone above said ... THIS is exactly what is happening in our society.

NO male involvement in primary school, dwindling male involvement in secondary school. NO opportunity to receive male role model close mentoring because of the risk of being caught alone with male teachers/coaches.

It is hardly surprising that so many young men these days show a complete inability to transition to becoming 'men' and remain irresponsible, petulant and delinquent until much later in life.

In years past, when I was growing up in the 60s and early 70s, young boys would gain and benefit enormously by watching grown men and how they behave in their close circle. They would also gain and benefit from brief but profound bits of advice from older men about life and growing up. They would gain and befit from having a man, other than their father, to confide in at moments of personal crisis as they grew up.

This has now been totally removed and denied to boys growing up. I believe it is already having a profound affect on boys.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

Have you considered that maybe there's more to it like the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible?

What utter nonsense ! We all know that this is broadly the case, but how does that change the situation one iota ???

It just means girls would be suitable from an earlier age and boys from a later age ..........

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I'm not justifying anything, I'm asking for opinions on theories like maturity, media hype etc.

Stating "the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible" is not asking for opinions, it's giving one. As for seeking other opinions, I pointed out that "because girls may mature faster on average, ergo all boys are immature" is a logical fallacy, something you have yet to even acknowledge.

Whether you're playing Devil's Advocate or actually hold these views, to date you've simply been putting forward justifications for the prejudices we've been discussing, so based upon the above, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you are really seeking opinions.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

Which is the VERY POINT we are discussing and seemed to be going over your head.

No it didn't, I've been popping in and out of the thread from the start so lose your attitude would you.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Stating "the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible" is not asking for opinions, it's giving one. As for seeking other opinions, I pointed out that "because girls may mature faster on average, ergo all boys are immature" is a logical fallacy, something you have yet to even acknowledge.

But I never said all boys are immature. You're putting words in my mouth.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Whether you're playing Devil's Advocate or actually hold these views, to date you've simply been putting forward justifications for the prejudices we've been discussing, so based upon the above, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you are really seeking opinions.

I have not justified anything, I've been asking questions.

I swear to got some of you lot are as bad as, if not worse than militant feminists. You'd swear I was here to disagree with the theme of the thread, when I'm not.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

But I never said all boys are immature. You're putting words in my mouth.

I'm not, that is precicely what you said - you even went so far as to underline how it's a 'fact': "the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible". That last bit isn't even suggesting some are, it's stating (as 'fact') that girls are more responsible.

These are the words you came out with - attempting to downplay them now is a bit disingenuous.

I have not justified anything, I've been asking questions.

What questions? From what I can see you've been putting forward opinions and if there are any questions they are rhetorical to this end.

I swear to got some of you lot are as bad as, if not worse than militant feminists. You'd swear I was here to disagree with the theme of the thread, when I'm not.

That's how you come across; you've consistently put forward nothing but positions that justify the present hysteria and none against, so unless you're playing Devil's Advocate (which I suggested you might well be) what conclusion should we reach?

But sure, calling your opponent a crazy militant makes for a better defence.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's how you come across; you've consistently put forward nothing but positions that justify the present hysteria and none against, so unless you're playing Devil's Advocate (which I suggested you might well be) what conclusion should we reach?

I asked who'd hire a male babysitter, then asked if they had a daughter would it change their mind, then said there's a perceived higher level of danger in hiring a male, then I explained why I think this perceived higher level of danger exists to see what other thought.

I really don't feel that my posts should have been met with a "you're with us or against us" type attitude.

They way I see it, there's a lot of hype caused by the media about paedophilia but it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet. The downside is that in nearly all cases the accused is male and it reflects bad as males on a whole. Even to the point I made earlier regarding the male photographer at the playground.

15 years ago if not more, Friends ran an episode where Ross and Rachel hired a male babysitter and Ross was freaking out, but got over it. Unfortunately since then there have been cases coming out of the woodwork on a near weekly basis so times haven't moved on. Most recent cases relate to the church, with male accusers who were supposed to be guardians of the children. unfortunate but true.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

No it didn't, I've been popping in and out of the thread from the start so lose your attitude would you.

Actually no I won't. My attitude is to respond to your comments as they deserve to be responded to, and do so accurately.

I swear to got some of you lot are as bad as, if not worse than militant feminists. You'd swear I was here to disagree with the theme of the thread, when I'm not.

Perhaps if you patronised us less and expressed yourself better we might dissolve some of your issues.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

Perhaps if you patronised us less and expressed yourself better we might dissolve some of your issues.

I suggest you learn to read better, as I don't have any issues and I've expressed myself just fine in my opinion.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

I asked who'd hire a male babysitter, then asked if they had a daughter would it change their mind, then said there's a perceived higher level of danger in hiring a male, then I explained why I think this perceived higher level of danger exists to see what other thought.

I really don't feel that my posts should have been met with a "you're with us or against us" type attitude.

No such attitude has been expressed, except in your own head. Your anger may be based on what you 'think' you write, but people's responses to you is based on what you actually wrote.

They way I see it, there's a lot of hype caused by the media about paedophilia but it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet.

So again you support the result of the hysteria and see no harm to men and boys across our society.

The downside is that in nearly all cases the accused is male and it reflects bad as males on a whole. Even to the point I made earlier regarding the male photographer at the playground.

so it 'reflects' badly but does no harm to men or boys...... are you serious ?

15 years ago if not more, Friends ran an episode where Ross and Rachel hired a male babysitter and Ross was freaking out, but got over it. Unfortunately since then there have been cases coming out of the woodwork on a near weekly basis so times haven't moved on. Most recent cases relate to the church, with male accusers who were supposed to be guardians of the children. unfortunate but true.

So you now agree that despite there being MILLIONS of other people in the country, and hundreds of thousands of children, the numbers of abusers being exposed justifies treating every man and young man as potential abusers ...... astonishing. Truly astonishing.

sha the man

look i will just put in my opinion as a man if that is any good to you. i am 30 had myself sterilized and outwardly avoid all contact with everyone i actually am pretty sure that if i saw anyone getting attacked or broken down by the side of the road i simply drive/walk on by. this is not because i would not feel for them or that i would not be able to defend someone. i simply think the all men are rapists mentality is prevalent in society. so in order to protect myself i cannot interact with society. the more contact that one has with madness the more likely you will be to be taken down by it. ergo i dont

smash

Piliger wrote: »

No such attitude has been expressed, except in your own head. Your anger may be based on what you 'think' you write, but people's responses to you is based on what you actually wrote.

My anger? There's only 2 people here being angry and neither of them are me.

Piliger wrote: »

So again you support the result of the hysteria and see no harm to men and boys across our society.

Nice way to put words in my mouth. "it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet" - Did not mention men and boys. Said it's good that parents are kept on their toes.

Piliger wrote: »

so it 'reflects' badly but does no harm to men or boys...... are you serious ?

Please read above. :rolleyes:

Piliger wrote: »

So you now agree that despite there being MILLIONS of other people in the country, and hundreds of thousands of children, the numbers of abusers being exposed justifies treating every man and young man as potential abusers ......

That is not what I said, nowhere even close

Piliger wrote: »

astonishing. Truly astonishing.

What's astonishing is your inability to read.

Like I said earlier, if you had read properly "You'd swear I was here to disagree with the theme of the thread, when I'm not."

iptba

sha the man wrote: »

look i will just put in my opinion as a man if that is any good to you. i am 30 had myself sterilized and outwardly avoid all contact with everyone i actually am pretty sure that if i saw anyone getting attacked or broken down by the side of the road i simply drive/walk on by. this is not because i would not feel for them or that i would not be able to defend someone. i simply think the all men are rapists mentality is prevalent in society. so in order to protect myself i cannot interact with society. the more contact that one has with madness the more likely you will be to be taken down by it. ergo i dont

I'm sorry to hear that. (taking what you said at face value)

LeeHoffmann

i simply think the all men are rapists mentality is prevalent in society. so in order to protect myself i cannot interact with society.

this is like the male version of ´all men are potential rapists, therefore to protect myself I avoid all contact with men´. This being your third post makes me suspicious, but if it´s true - that´s a sad state of affairs and I´d advise you to get a little perspective. Most men and women don´t think all men are rapists as you claim

Piliger

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

this is like the male version of ´all men are potential rapists, therefore to protect myself I avoid all contact with men´. This being your third post makes me suspicious, but if it´s true - that´s a sad state of affairs and I´d advise you to get a little perspective. Most men and women don´t think all men are rapists as you claim

Unfortunately he is right. This is how society is now and the authorities support that. The default position is that the man is guilty is accused.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

"it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet"

I find it bizzare how you can argue that this this means anythingh other than this hysteria is a good thing and does no harm. That is what you wrote. You consistently write things and then deny you mean what you wrote. "it can't be a bad thing". You appear to have some kind of problem with the English language.

Many others think that actually it IS a bad thing. It hurts boys growing up, it hurts men. Badly.

And you really are tiresome in how to characterise people who disagree with you. I see no one angry here. No one. Only people trying to discuss a topic while some try to be disruptive and disingenuous.

LeeHoffmann

Unfortunately he is right. This is how society is now and the authorities support that. The default position is that the man is guilty is accused.

No he isn´t right. He´s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It´s wildly over-exaggerating to say ´most men and women think all men are rapists´ and it´s completely unreasonable to totally withdraw from society

smash

Piliger wrote: »

I find it bizzare how you can argue that this this means anythingh other than this hysteria is a good thing and does no harm. That is what you wrote.

It's ok, lots of things are bizarre when you don't understand them. Or when you refuse to even try.

Piliger wrote: »

You consistently write things and then deny you mean what you wrote. "it can't be a bad thing". You appear to have some kind of problem with the English language.

Yes, it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their toes. If this had happened 30/40 years ago the church would not have gotten away with what they did.

Piliger wrote: »

Many others think that actually it IS a bad thing. It hurts boys growing up, it hurts men. Badly.

No, what hurts them are wrong assumptions. Not protective parents.

Piliger wrote: »

And you really are tiresome in how to characterise people who disagree with you. I see no one angry here. No one. Only people trying to discuss a topic while some try to be disruptive and disingenuous.

You know what's tiresome? And quite petty too... To call someone disingenuous just because you couldn't be arsed to read their posts and instead twist their words to suit your agenda.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I asked who'd hire a male babysitter, then asked if they had a daughter would it change their mind, then said there's a perceived higher level of danger in hiring a male, then I explained why I think this perceived higher level of danger exists to see what other thought.

Actually, you've done nothing other than argue the case of why male babysitters should not be employed. Not only have you not suggested that this is in any way exaggerated, but have repeatedly suggested that it is not and is backed up by various 'facts' that rely upon a number of sweeping generalizations, which when it was pointed that they were sweeping generalizations you've quietly ignored.

So you've pointed out why there's a perceived higher level of danger in hiring a male, why this danger is so and then ignored any and all counter arguments against your view, despite claiming to seek other opinions.

They way I see it, there's a lot of hype caused by the media about paedophilia but it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet. The downside is that in nearly all cases the accused is male and it reflects bad as males on a whole. Even to the point I made earlier regarding the male photographer at the playground.

15 years ago if not more, Friends ran an episode where Ross and Rachel hired a male babysitter and Ross was freaking out, but got over it. Unfortunately since then there have been cases coming out of the woodwork on a near weekly basis so times haven't moved on. Most recent cases relate to the church, with male accusers who were supposed to be guardians of the children. unfortunate but true.

Essentially, what you're saying is that it is hysteria, but as it keeps kids safe, by keeping parents "on their feet", it's not a bad thing. Indeed, as most cases involve male abusers, you end by essentially justifying this blanket prejudice over all men.

Please, please, please stop pretending that you are in any way balanced in this discussion.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Essentially, what you're saying is that it is hysteria, but as it keeps kids safe, by keeping parents "on their feet", it's not a bad thing. Indeed, as most cases involve male abusers, you end by essentially justifying this blanket prejudice over all men.

Please, please, please stop pretending that you are in any way balanced in this discussion.

He is repeatedly posting statements that support and exacerbate the problem and then he denies it. Time and time again.

I am tired of pointing it out to him - so I am simply going to accept that his posts exhibit the irrational level of thinking that is going on in society, produced by the unbalanced and hysterical nature of the news coverage.

That there are even men who can be so confused about their response and their views demonstrates the very point being discussed.

It demonstrates the corrupting affect of biased reporting; reporting without any perspective or proportionality over a long period. It really messes with people's heads and their ability to assess risk, causing them to adopt extreme views under the umbrella of a 'better safe than sorry' policy that they can then rationalise to themselves despite the obvious wider damage to society. But they excuse this because of the fear being instilled in them by the Media.

We desperately need some authoritative source of real world information - to counter balance this bias.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually, you've done nothing other than argue the case of why male babysitters should not be employed.

No, I've said the reasons that I feel people don't employ male babysitters.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So you've pointed out why there's a perceived higher level of danger in hiring a male, why this danger is so and then ignored any and all counter arguments against your view, despite claiming to seek other opinions.

Counter arguments for what exactly? I've pointed out the fears, because they're real.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Essentially, what you're saying is that it is hysteria, but as it keeps kids safe, by keeping parents "on their feet", it's not a bad thing.

No, what I'm saying is that the perception and fear of pedophilia keeps parents on their toes which is not a bad thing as in the past things happened it wasn't there and look what happened. But unfortunately it has also lead to forms of prejudice.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Indeed, as most cases involve male abusers, you end by essentially justifying this blanket prejudice over all men.

No I didn't.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Please, please, please stop pretending that you are in any way balanced in this discussion.

They way you talk, you'd swear I was a man hater... which is absurd to be honest.

Piliger wrote: »

He is repeatedly posting statements that support and exacerbate the problem and then he denies it. Time and time again.

support? no, just highlight the issues.

Piliger wrote: »

I am tired of pointing it out to him - so I am simply going to accept that his posts exhibit the irrational level of thinking that is going on in society, produced by the unbalanced and hysterical nature of the news coverage.

Do that if it makes you happy. I'm tired of saying that I agree with the premise of the thread.

Piliger

A couple more articles that are interesting:

Wall street Journal

"Consider the Iowa daycare center where Nichole Adkins works. The one male aide employed there, she told me in an interview, is not allowed to change diapers. "In fact," Ms. Adkins said, "he has been asked to leave the classroom when diapering was happening.""

http://human-stupidity.com

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

A couple more articles that are interesting:

Wall street Journal

"Consider the Iowa daycare center where Nichole Adkins works. The one male aide employed there, she told me in an interview, is not allowed to change diapers. "In fact," Ms. Adkins said, "he has been asked to leave the classroom when diapering was happening.""

http://human-stupidity.com

Last February, a woman followed a man around at a store berating him for clutching a pile of girls' panties. "I can't believe this! You're disgusting. This is a public place, you pervert!" she said—until the guy, who posted about the episode on a website, fished out his ID. He was a clerk restocking the underwear department.

This reminds me of the woman reporting the grandfather for looking at books in the children's section.

I think one of the issues that may be involved is vigilantism. Generally in society now, vigilantism isn't encouraged that much; however, if it's done in the name of protecting children, it's a different matter. Similarly, saving people e.g. from a burning building or whatever can be risky for oneself; but one can get the "hero feeling" by reporting some sort of behaviour you think might be risky for children, without taking on the risks involved in other "hero"-type activities.

sha the man

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

this is like the male version of ´all men are potential rapists, therefore to protect myself I avoid all contact with men´. This being your third post makes me suspicious, but if it´s true - that´s a sad state of affairs and I´d advise you to get a little perspective. Most men and women don´t think all men are rapists as you claim

suspicious of what exactly. first of all i have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. second i have never and would never do anything to harm another human being, however the only way i know of to protect myself is to avoid potential danger. you don't willingly stick your arm into the lions den and then complain when its bitten off. the fact is that there is a suspicion of men in today. the only way you can know this is to open your eyes and look around you. the biased media such as family guy and the simpsons portray the men as fat useless foolish oafs or in the case of family guy the same of above with the addition of sex mad quagmire whose culmination was being in bed with peter griffins daughter. the bottom line is o will always protect myself from the crazies and were any woman in my position she would do the same

iptba

sha the man wrote: »

suspicious of what exactly. first of all i have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. second i have never and would never do anything to harm another human being, however the only way i know of to protect myself is to avoid potential danger. you don't willingly stick your arm into the lions den and then complain when its bitten off. the fact is that there is a suspicion of men in today. the only way you can know this is to open your eyes and look around you. the biased media such as family guy and the simpsons portray the men as fat useless foolish oafs or in the case of family guy the same of above with the addition of sex mad quagmire whose culmination was being in bed with peter griffins daughter. the bottom line is o will always protect myself from the crazies and were any woman in my position she would do the same

Women's Studies, I know, does a lot of analysis of women in the media, literature, advertisements, etc., past and present.

I think similar work on men and how they are portrayed would be interesting.

I think there is a little bit done now in Gender Studies but not sure how much and sometimes it may be done through the prism of feminism.

LeeHoffmann

suspicious of what exactly. first of all i have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. second i have never and would never do anything to harm another human being

wilful misinterpretation, eh? Just in case...I suspect that, given that was your third post, you´re a re-reg troll. If I´m wrong and you are a genuine albeit newbie poster then I advise you take some perspective. It is a silly over exaggeration to say that most men and women think that all men are rapists. It´s mad to completely withdraw from society based on that. Hence I compared you to those women who say things like "all men are potential rapists therefore, to protect myself, I cannot interact with men" - i.e. the very attitude you rightfully denigrate. Your attitude is just as radical and indefensible as that one.

sha the man

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

wilful misinterpretation, eh? Just in case...I suspect that, given that was your third post, you´re a re-reg troll. If I´m wrong and you are a genuine albeit newbie poster then I advise you take some perspective. It is a silly over exaggeration to say that most men and women think that all men are rapists. It´s mad to completely withdraw from society based on that. Hence I compared you to those women who say things like "all men are potential rapists therefore, to protect myself, I cannot interact with men" - i.e. the very attitude you rightfully denigrate. Your attitude is just as radical and indefensible as that one.

look man you do what you want as regards women tis a free country. i am new to boards but not to my ideas and i will not become a chump working to pay a mortgage on a house that some woman i knocked up wants to live there on her own. that is my choice i take the experience of other people and i try to learn from them. if your happy to take all your earnings and gamble them then fair enough. i have come to my decision through observation and logic

iptba

sha the man wrote: »

look man you do what you want as regards women tis a free country. i am new to boards but not to my ideas and i will not become a chump working to pay a mortgage on a house that some woman i knocked up wants to live there on her own. that is my choice i take the experience of other people and i try to learn from them. if your happy to take all your earnings and gamble them then fair enough. i have come to my decision through observation and logic

This approach is sometimes summarised as MGTOW (men going their own way).

sha the man

thank you another Americanism to remember i will look into it. but i came to this conclusion a long time ago

Piliger

sha the man wrote: »

suspicious of what exactly. first of all i have nothing to prove to you or anyone else. second i have never and would never do anything to harm another human being, however the only way i know of to protect myself is to avoid potential danger.

You have nothing to apologise or defend. I think your position makes perfect sense. You should not feel that you need to sacrifice yourself on the alter of society's prejudice.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

No, I've said the reasons that I feel people don't employ male babysitters.

Actually you've done more than that - you've supported these arguments, such as the generalization about boy's maturity being inferior to girls as a 'fact'. So please stop pretending you're in any way balanced here.

Counter arguments for what exactly? I've pointed out the fears, because they're real.

Counter arguments for your ridiculous generalizations, such as the one I mention above. As to fear being real, of course it is, just as a child's fear of the dark is real - doesn't justify or make it a 'real' threat though.

No, what I'm saying is that the perception and fear of pedophilia keeps parents on their toes which is not a bad thing as in the past things happened it wasn't there and look what happened. But unfortunately it has also lead to forms of prejudice.

Yet you are portraying this prejudice, born out of hysteria, to be a necessary evil (if not please show where you have said otherwise) and this is where our views diverge.

At no point have you suggested that the effect of this hysteria on male role models for children is in any way bad - indeed, you've supported the hysteria's capacity to keep "parents on their toes". Hence I and others have concluded that on balance you support it.

If this is incorrect, then by all means point out where you have said otherwise, otherwise it is clear from your arguments that this is the conclusion you've been attempting to reach in your arguments.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you've done more than that - you've supported these arguments, such as the generalization about boy's maturity being inferior to girls as a 'fact'. So please stop pretending you're in any way balanced here.

No I haven't supported them, Don't know why I have to keep repeating myself but if you can't understand the statement "I'm not supporting them" then it's your issue.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Counter arguments for your ridiculous generalizations, such as the one I mention above. As to fear being real, of course it is, just as a child's fear of the dark is real - doesn't justify or make it a 'real' threat though.

A real fear vs real threat argument... well there's clearly not going to be any winners here as when it involves your child, you're going to go with your heart and not sit down to analyse the situation to see if you're being irrational about their safety. That's not going to change.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet you are portraying this prejudice, born out of hysteria, to be a necessary evil (if not please show where you have said otherwise) and this is where our views diverge.

No I'm not portraying the prejudice as a necessary evil, I'm saying the general fear of pedophilia has become a necessary evil. The same way the fear of abduction is a necessary evil. You know "don't talk to strangers" "don't go too far" etc etc. Because every day there are stories about it happening somewhere.

The Corinthian wrote: »

At no point have you suggested that the effect of this hysteria on male role models for children is in any way bad - indeed, you've supported the hysteria's capacity to keep "parents on their toes".

Jesus, another one who can't read "But unfortunately it has also lead to forms of prejudice." I would have though that 'But unfortunately' says it's bad. And again, I don't support the prejudice.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hence I and others have concluded that on balance you support it.

You and one other. And you're both wrong.

The Corinthian wrote: »

If this is incorrect, then by all means point out where you have said otherwise,

Just did that above.

The Corinthian wrote: »

otherwise it is clear from your arguments that this is the conclusion you've been attempting to reach in your arguments.

No, it might be clear in your head but that's the only place.

LeeHoffmann

look man you do what you want as regards women tis a free country. i am new to boards but not to my ideas and i will not become a chump working to pay a mortgage on a house that some woman i knocked up wants to live there on her own. that is my choice i take the experience of other people and i try to learn from them. if your happy to take all your earnings and gamble them then fair enough. i have come to my decision through observation and logic

that´s not what you said. You said you do not interact with society, not that you don´t have relationships :rolleyes:

walshb

Is it wrong to maybe prefer, or to choose a female babysitter over a male? Generally speaking. Two teens (16-19), both unrelated to you and your children, both available to babysit your young children. You know them both equally well. I would hedge a bet that most people would choose the female.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

Is it wrong to maybe prefer, or to choose a female babysitter over a male? Generally speaking. Two teens (16-19), both unrelated to you and your children, both available to babysit your young children. You know them both equally well. I would hedge a bet that most people would choose the female.

Maybe you can answer your own question.

Is it wrong to maybe prefer, or to choose a fe male babysitter employee over a female? Generally speaking. Two teens (16-19) employees, both unrelated to you and your children equally qualified...

I'd hedge a bet that most people would consider selecting the man, simply because he's male a bad thing.

I don't think it's "wrong" to choose either on personal preference, so long as you're not ignorant to your prejudice. That said, it is very wrong not to choose the male simply because you think he's a sexual predator.

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

Maybe you can answer your own question.

Is it wrong to maybe prefer, or to choose a fe male babysitter employee over a female? Generally speaking. Two teens (16-19) employees, both unrelated to you and your children equally qualified...

I'd hedge a bet that most people would consider selecting the man, simply because he's male a bad thing.

I don't think it's "wrong" to choose either on personal preference, so long as you're not ignorant to your prejudice. That said, it is very wrong not to choose the male simply because you think he's a sexual predator.

Me? If I had to choose I would select the female.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

No I'm not portraying the prejudice as a necessary evil, I'm saying the general fear of pedophilia has become a necessary evil. The same way the fear of abduction is a necessary evil. You know "don't talk to strangers" "don't go too far" etc etc. Because every day there are stories about it happening somewhere.

Yet how this fear is manifesting itself, in the systematic exclusion of men from the lives of children, is part of that apparent 'necessary evil'. You may deem it "unfortunate", but that's the nature of 'necessary evil' - unfortunate, but ultimately required - and that appears to be your position in lieu of any criticism of it, beyond vaguely calling it a prejudice, but otherwise accepting its place in society.

So we know it happens, and we know why it happens. Is this justified and if not, what should be done to fix the situation?

walshb wrote: »

Is it wrong to maybe prefer, or to choose a female babysitter over a male? Generally speaking. Two teens (16-19), both unrelated to you and your children, both available to babysit your young children. You know them both equally well. I would hedge a bet that most people would choose the female.

Sure they would. And were an employer to interview a thirty year old man and a thirty year old woman of equal suitability for a role, who do you think they'll choose? I would hedge a bet that most would choose the one less likely to go off on parental leave, potentially never to return, within the next two or so years.

Is it wrong to maybe prefer, or to choose a male applicant over a female there? If you feel that it is not wrong to choose a female babysitter over a male, then by exactly the same logic you cannot claim that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of gender in employment law.

And this is the problem with this debate. We know that it happens. We know why it happens. But there appears to be some bizarre acceptance that perhaps this should happen. This, and the overall effects of this prejudice (as per the thread title), is what this thread should be about, not fatalistically pointing out that 'this is how things are' and accept them.

walshb

Well, should it happen? No. Does it happen? Yes. Do I understand the reasoning/logic/thought process for why it happens? Yes. That is my point. In a perfect world many things would not happen. We are far from perfect. In this world males will be perceived and viewed by people as posing a greater risk to children in a sexual sense. Where does this perception and view come from? That's an easy one to figure out.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

Well, should it happen? No. Does it happen? Yes. Do I understand the reasoning/logic/thought process for why it happens? Yes. That is my point. In a perfect world many things would not happen. We are far from perfect. In this world males will be perceived and viewed by people as posing a greater risk to children in a sexual sense. Where does this perception and view come from? That's an easy one to figure out.

So are we just going to go round in circles then explaining where this prejudice originates from and, seemingly, agreeing that it is a negative thing for a few more pages? I ask because since we all pretty much agree on this, but if that's all we discuss, it begins to look as if some of us are actually condoning or justifying it and, frankly, thread spoiling.

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

So are we just going to go round in circles then explaining where this prejudice originates from and, seemingly, agreeing that it is a negative thing for a few more pages? I ask because since we all pretty much agree on this, but if that's all we discuss, it begins to look as if some of us are actually condoning or justifying it and, frankly, thread spoiling.

All in agreement. Hooray!

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

All in agreement. Hooray!

Only if you don't fall into the category of such prejudice being a 'necessary evil'.

And even if not, what then? Or have your and smash's contribution simply been to reiterate what was already essentially agreed upon on page one of the thread?

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet how this fear is manifesting itself, in the systematic exclusion of men from the lives of children, is part of that apparent 'necessary evil'. You may deem it "unfortunate", but that's the nature of 'necessary evil' - unfortunate, but ultimately required - and that appears to be your position in lieu of any criticism of it, beyond vaguely calling it a prejudice, but otherwise accepting its place in society.

I reluctantly accept it's place in society. Not accepting it would mean that I was brushing it under the carpet like people used to do. This does not mean I support it or agree with it though.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So we know it happens, and we know why it happens. Is this justified and if not, what should be done to fix the situation?

I don't think anyone agrees that it's justified but there's no real world way to fix it bar lobbying for people to employ male babysitters etc over female babysitters but that's just like the ridiculous gender quota argument for females in government. People need to move on it themselves.

People's mindsets need to change and it's not going to happen any time soon if the majority of cases where a child's supposed guardian continue to involve a male perpetrator. Maybe if the punishments were worse for these people it would deter them but I don't even think it's that simple.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

People's mindsets need to change and it's not going to happen any time soon

Certainly not if people like you lend support to such prejudices through your acceptance of them and do nothing to alter them.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Certainly not if people like you lend support to such prejudices through your acceptance of them and do nothing to alter them.

Again, I don't support them. This is becoming a joke at this stage! And I do not accept them either, but I accept why they are there. It's 2 different things completely.

Zulu

smash wrote: »

Again, I don't support them. This is becoming a joke at this stage! And I do not accept them either, but I accept why they are there. It's 2 different things completely.

So in short, all your posts so far have been a long-winded effort to explain that you acknowledge the issue, but don't agree with it, but you acknowledge it?

Super. Now it's acknowledged (but not agreed with), can we move on?

(btw: I want the last 2 pages of this thread back!)

LeeHoffmann

to choose a fe male babysitter employee over a female?

a babysitter isn´t like any other employee in that when you hire a babysitter, you are risking the security and wellbeing of other people (your children). An important difference

Zulu

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

a babysitter isn´t like any other employee in that when you hire a babysitter, you are risking the security and wellbeing of other people (your children). An important difference

Wut?

You didn't really think that through, did you? So it's nothing, like, say, a teacher? or a nurse? or a doctor? or a bus driver? or a pilot? or a marine captain? or a....
Point is, a babysitter isn't the only employee that has that level of responsibility.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

So in short, all your posts so far have been a long-winded effort to explain that you acknowledge the issue, but don't agree with it, but you acknowledge it?

Super. Now it's acknowledged (but not agreed with), can we move on?

(btw: I want the last 2 pages of this thread back!)

That's what I've said since the start but other keep accusing me of supporting the prejudice. Tell them to move on.

LeeHoffmann

a babysitter isn't the only employee that has that level of responsibility.

did you really think it through? A babysitter is usually alone with the children in a house (ie not open to the public or passers by) for hours on end. The same cannot be said of a teacher, a nurse, a doctor, a bus driver, a pilot, a marine captain, or a...
Point is, children (particularly young children) are quite vulnerable with babysitters, and everyone has to right to choose their babysitter based on whatever prejudice they see fit. Ignoring your instincts for the sake of being PC is the height of irresponsibility because it´s not your own well-being you´re risking.

Now having said that, if a person decided that black people/homosexuals/all males/all females/all Americans etc were untrustworthy - I´d find that ignorant, but I would defend their right to make that decision.