Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

Options
12357…18

Comments

  • Options
    #122
    Feeona
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭Feeona


    Piliger wrote: »
    The shame of it is that people are so passive in swallowing everything they read in the Media, with no ability or education on how to 'interpret' what they read and see.

    Yeah it's amazing the knee-jerk reaction to things happening half way across the world. But if I ever heard anyone talking about a man in such a way (and thank god I don't know anyone who would do such a thing), I would question them about it. I think people who spread things like that don't realise the huge damage they're causing. Really short sighted and self absorbed


  • Options
    #123
    py2006
    Registered Users Posts: 9,847 ✭✭✭py2006


    Personally, I would never allow myself to be in a situation where somebody could accuse me of anything of that nature. There was a time when I considered becoming a primary school teacher but chose not to go down that route.

    I recall my religion teacher in school (all boys) telling us not to work or mix with children because there may be some sort of temptation!! :eek: I was only about 16/17 at the time and I recall being absolutely appalled by this. I was tempted to say "speak for yourself" but that would have gotten me suspended or something. :rolleyes:

    As I grew older, I have chosen not to work/mix with children for fear of any kind of false allegation. It is sad I suppose but it is the world we live in.


  • Options
    #124
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Like it or not men will always pose more of a danger (sexually) to children. Yes, women do too, but men much more so.

    As regards physical violence both men and women are almost equal in their threat to children. I can understand fully any man's reluctance to engage with children. I do, however, welcome any safeguards that the authorities employ. I feel it's always better to be safe than sorry. It was a continual blase attitude and a lack of vetting that saw many crimes against children. Not saying it's perfect now, but I would like to think the vetting procedures today for men (and women) dealing with children are a lot more stringent and regulated.


  • Options
    #125
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭iptba


    walshb wrote: »
    Like it or not men will always pose more of a danger (sexually) to children. Yes, women do too, but men much more so.

    As regards physical violence both men and women are almost equal in their threat to children. I can understand fully any man's reluctance to engage with children. I do, however, welcome any safeguards that the authorities employ. I feel it's always better to be safe than sorry. It was a continual balse attitude and a lack of vetting that saw many crimes against children. Not saying it's perfect now, but I woiuld like to think the vetting procedures today for men (and women) dealing with children are a lot more stringent and regulated.
    So any proposals that people come up with, once it is claimed they are to reduce risk, would be ok?


  • Options
    #126
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    iptba wrote: »
    So any proposals that people come up with, once it is claimed they are to reduce risk, would be ok?

    No!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #127
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    Like it or not men will always pose more of a danger (sexually) to children. Yes, women do too, but men much more so.
    Somewhere in the region of 90% of child abuse (both sexual and physical) occurs in the family or close family friends. Ergo, we should remove children from their families so and allow the State to raise them in safety.
    I do, however, welcome any safeguards that the authorities employ. I feel it's always better to be safe than sorry.
    No one is arguing that safeguards should be ignored, however there is a line at which safeguards go from being reasonable to hysterical; punishing the innocent majority and causing more overall harm than good.

    Men are human beings too, you know.


  • Options
    #128
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Somewhere in the region of 90% of child abuse (both sexual and physical) occurs in the family or close family friends. Ergo, we should remove children from their families so and allow the State to raise them in safety.

    No one is arguing that safeguards should be ignored, however there is a line at which safeguards go from being reasonable to hysterical; punishing the innocent majority and causing more overall harm than good.

    Men are human beings too, you know.

    Not sure what your point is as regards the family. I am well aware that most sexual abuse happens in the family, and mostly perpetrated by the male/males within the family. I know this.

    Safeguards brought in after consulation, discussion, advice etc, all from the relevant authorities. There will never be a perfect system, and not all the people will agree all the time, hence democracy and organisations are needed to make rules and create legislation for the greater good.

    My point is concerning men working with children. Women working with children. Men historically and naturally will pose the greater sexual risk to children. I am all for any safeguards and rules brought in to protect children from such abuse. Of course, as I said, after talking, discussion, reports, findings etc.


  • Options
    #129
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭iptba


    walshb wrote: »
    Not sure what your point is as regards the family. I am well aware that most sexual abuse happens in the family, and mostly perpetrated by the male/males within the family. I know this.

    Safeguards brought in after consulation, discussion, advice etc, all from the relevant authorities. There will never be a perfect system, and not all the people will agree all the time, hence democracy and organisations are needed to make rules and create legislation for the greater good.

    My point is concerning men working with children. Women working with children. Men historically and naturally will pose the greater sexual risk to children. I am all for any safeguards and rules brought in to protect children from such abuse. Of cours, as I said, after talking, discussion, reports, findings etc.
    Not sure this is the best example, but here goes: Another country could decide I'm more likely to be a problem drinker as from I'm from Ireland: would it be ok if they made laws and rules based on this statistical observation? (Not sure what rules: maybe, that I can't hold a bar/pub/alcohol license; perhaps a driving license).

    Or perhaps a better example: maybe in the UK, they decide that I could be a terrorist, and don't let me in (go back 20 years, say).


  • Options
    #130
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    .

    Men are human beings too, you know.

    I know. Where did I suggest otherwise?


  • Options
    #131
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    iptba wrote: »
    Not sure this is the best example, but here goes: Another country could decide I'm more likely to be a problem drinker as from I'm from Ireland: would it be ok if they made laws and rules based on this statistical observation? (Not sure what rules: maybe, that I can't hold a bar/pub/alcohol license; perhaps a driving license)

    I don't believe it's a good example:

    Simple: Can you agree that statistically men have a far higher rate of child sexual abuse as compared to women? It's not even close. It's the way it is. It's part of what makes men men (a bad part) and what makes women women.

    Now, if we can accept that the above is true then it's only logical that men will come under closer scrutiny when dealing with children. This is what the whole thread is about.

    I have clearly said that I welcome any safeguards that the relevant authorities bring in to protect children. And I also clearly said that these sageguards etc will be brought in after discussion and talking and reprting. Not just any safeguard for the sake of it.

    I will also concede that I may disagree with some safeguards. But, in general I welcome the effort to safeguard our children. Like I said, you cannot please all the people all of the time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #132
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    Not sure what your point is as regards the family. I am well aware that most sexual abuse happens in the family, and mostly perpetrated by the male/males within the family. I know this.
    My point is to demonstrate that one may completely overreact, to the point of hysteria, based upon statistics, and in doing so not only punish the innocent majority, but also hurt the very people you are claiming to protect.

    Ironically, the above statistical argument may well be the logic behind the forthcoming children's referendum.
    Safeguards brought in after consulation, discussion, advice etc, all from the relevant authorities. There will never be a perfect system, and not all the people will agree all the time, hence democracy and organisations are needed to make rules and create legislation for the greater good.
    No one denies that safeguards should exist, but then again, no one is debating that. What we're discussing is that the safeguards, based upon gender profiling, are so extreme that they not only act against half of he population, but ultimately against the greater good.
    Of course, as I said, after talking, discussion, reports, findings etc.
    Nice to see you've added that caveat.

    How much talking, discussion, reports, findings etc have there been, BTW? Outside of the tabloids, I mean.


  • Options
    #133
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Nice to see you've added that caveat.

    How much talking, discussion, reports, findings etc have there been, BTW? Outside of the tabloids, I mean.

    I thought that this would have been a given?

    Any laws and rules etc brought in in a civilised and democratic society usually are brought in after discussions and consultations and due process.

    I also conceded that there may well be laws or rules brought in that I would disagree with, but, you cannot please everyone.

    When it comes to children I would hope that the people would place their safety as a major priority. And I am not talking about becoming hysterical. Just stringent and regulated rules and enforced rules.


  • Options
    #134
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    I thought that this would have been a given?
    Is it? I've noticed that quite a few bills have been passed, not to mention policies, in recent years that either have had little discussion or open debate. So, no, I suspect it is not a given.
    I also conceded that there may well be laws or rules brought in that I would disagree with, but, you cannot please everyone.
    Democracy doesn't work that way though. Just because a majority may like something, that does not mean that they can rail-road the minority.

    Otherwise, I suspect Ireland would have introduced internment camps for Travellers, long ago.
    When it comes to children I would hope that the people would place their safety as a major priority.
    As long as you understand that major priority does not imply only priority.
    And I am not talking about becoming hysterical. Just stringent and regulated rules and enforced rules.
    And is this what we have then?


  • Options
    #135
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    walshb wrote: »
    Like it or not men will always pose more of a danger (sexually) to children. Yes, women do too, but men much more so.
    I am sorry but this is a meaningless and useless comment in the contact of this discussion.

    Statistically it may be so, but this is no basis for a society blanketing ALL men with a label on their head of being potential abusers !

    As Corinthian says, correctly, the vast majority of abuse happens in the inner family. So why don't we remove all children from families ? A thoroughly silly proposition but one that is the rational and logical conclusion of your comment.
    I can understand fully any man's reluctance to engage with children. I do, however, welcome any safeguards that the authorities employ. I feel it's always better to be safe than sorry.

    In your view it would be statistically 'better' then, if men as a gender were removed 100% from all institutional and organised interaction with children. This is what you are saying. This would ensure more safe than sorry after all - which is your mantra.
    It was a continual blase attitude and a lack of vetting that saw many crimes against children. Not saying it's perfect now, but I would like to think the vetting procedures today for men (and women) dealing with children are a lot more stringent and regulated.

    This is the kind of abject failure to grasp the context or proportionality concerning crimes against children that causes the problem we are discussing. There is NO evidence anywhere that any crimes have been prevented by the new rules. There is only a 'comfort blanket' thrown over the problem to assure us that there is some barrier to abusers getting in to the official system. And NONE of these procedures involved the family - where 90+% of all abuse takes place.

    That is not saying that many of the procedures are not right. They are. But this is not the issue of the thread, and contrinutes nothing to it imho.


  • Options
    #136
    Gloomtastic!
    Registered Users Posts: 8,319 ✭✭✭Gloomtastic!


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    My point is to demonstrate that one may completely overreact, to the point of hysteria, based upon statistics, and in doing so not only punish the innocent majority, but also hurt the very people you are claiming to protect.

    Ironically, the above statistical argument may well be the logic behind the forthcoming children's referendum.

    No one denies that safeguards should exist, but then again, no one is debating that. What we're discussing is that the safeguards, based upon gender profiling, are so extreme that they not only act against half of he population, but ultimately against the greater good.

    Nice to see you've added that caveat.

    How much talking, discussion, reports, findings etc have there been, BTW? Outside of the tabloids, I mean.

    Where I volunteer, we were given a 96page 'Safeguarding Children' Book that outlined, obviously after a huge amount of discussions, reports, findings etc, all the things we couldn't do with the kids.

    The kids we looked after were a right handful, always killing each other and up to no good.

    'What can we do to bring some sort of discipline to the room?' The powers that be just looked at me blankly..... :confused:


  • Options
    #137
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Is it? I've noticed that quite a few bills have been passed, not to mention policies, in recent years that either have had little discussion or open debate. So, no, I suspect it is not a given.

    Democracy doesn't work that way though. Just because a majority may like something, that does not mean that they can rail-road the minority.

    Otherwise, I suspect Ireland would have introduced internment camps for Travellers, long ago.

    As long as you understand that major priority does not imply only priority.

    And is this what we have then?

    I am not an expert on the rules in place at the moment. I am not even aware of most of them. I don't believe I ever claimed I was either. I am simply saying that I would welcome any/most laws passed by the 'people' to safeguard our children. I also have to place a certain amount of trust with those in a position of authority to make decisions for me. I elect politicians for this reason.

    BTW, one rule I hope to god is enforced is a good and detailed background check on any person who applies to deal and work with children. Also, when working with children I would hope that there are safeguards in place in the workplace to monitor and keep and eye on those in their trusted positions.


  • Options
    #138
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Piliger wrote: »
    I am sorry but this is a meaningless and useless comment in the contact of this discussion.

    Statistically it may be so, but this is no basis for a society blanketing ALL men with a label on their head of being potential abusers !

    As Corinthian says, correctly, the vast majority of abuse happens in the inner family. So why don't we remove all children from families ? A thoroughly silly proposition but one that is the rational and logical conclusion of your comment.

    .

    Who is blanketing all men?

    As for the family. I am aware of this. My issue and point was concerning working with children.

    Why are you bringing up the family? This is not something I was discussing.

    BTW, it may sound harsh, but "potentially" every man is an abuser. Any person who decides to leave their child alone with a male will take a risk. Yes, one could say the same about a woman, but statistics will clearly show that males are far more likely to sexually abuse children. That is backed up by facts. And, like it or not most men and women would have less concern about leaving their child alone with a female.


  • Options
    #139
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Piliger wrote: »
    As Corinthian says, correctly, the vast majority of abuse happens in the inner family. So why don't we remove all children from families ? A thoroughly silly proposition but one that is the rational and logical conclusion of your comment.
    .

    And where did I suggest that we remove men from working with children?:confused: It's not at all a logical conclusion.

    I never said or suggessted or implied this at all.


  • Options
    #140
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    Who is blanketing all men?
    Read the thread.
    Why are you bringing up the family? This is not something I was discussing.
    Both Pilliger and I have explained why.
    BTW, it may sound harsh, but "potentially" every man is an abuser. Any person who decides to leave their child alone with a male will take a risk. Yes, one could say the same about a woman, but statistics will clearly show that males are far more likely to sexually abuse children. That is backed up by facts.
    That makes no sense. Every woman is 'potentially' an abuser too, but apparently you support only imposing draconian restrictions on men. Indeed, every family member is 'potentially' an abuser and statistics clearly show that family members are far more likely to sexually abuse than unrelated males or females. Do you support safeguards there?
    walshb wrote: »
    I am not an expert on the rules in place at the moment. I am not even aware of most of them. I don't believe I ever claimed I was either. I am simply saying that I would welcome any/most laws passed by the 'people' to safeguard our children. I also have to place a certain amount of trust with those in a position of authority to make decisions for me. I elect politicians for this reason.
    "I don't know what I'm talking about, can't be arsed to find out, but I still have an opinion".

    Grand so. As a species, we're doomed then, IMHO.


  • Options
    #141
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    walshb wrote: »

    Now, if we can accept that the above is true then it's only logical that men will come under closer scrutiny when dealing with children. This is what the whole thread is about.

    Clearly you haven't even read the name of this Topic in that case.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #142
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Why are you making stuff up? What draconian measures did I mention?


  • Options
    #143
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Piliger wrote: »
    Clearly you haven't even read the name of this Topic in that case.

    The thread? Isn't the OP relating to men in a positive role? Working with children etc?

    If so, I believe I have read the case.


  • Options
    #144
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That makes no sense. Every woman is 'potentially' an abuser too, but apparently you support only imposing draconian restrictions on men. Indeed, every family member is 'potentially' an abuser and statistics clearly show that family members are far more likely to sexually abuse than unrelated males or females. Do you support safeguards there?
    .

    Hold on. Is the thread about men in the family, or is it about men in volunteer positions and working with children?

    If the former, then we better start a new discussion. If the latter, then we're back on track.


  • Options
    #145
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭iptba


    walshb wrote: »
    I have clearly said that I welcome any safeguards that the relevant authorities bring in to protect children. And I also clearly said that these sageguards etc will be brought in after discussion and talking and reprting. Not just any safeguard for the sake of it.
    You keep saying "any" safeguards - there are a lot of safeguards possible. If they take a precautionary principle, all sorts of laws and rules could be introduced.

    Not sure if you noticed, but airline companies have a policy where men can't sit beside unaccompanied children: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuagans/2012/08/14/who-can-sit-next-to-children-on-flights/
    - does that meet your criteria?

    Not sure if you saw it but I added another example of profiling: the UK decide that I could be a terrorist because I'm Irish, so don't let me in (go back 20 years, say).


  • Options
    #146
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    walshb wrote: »
    Hold on. Is the thread about men in the family, or is it about men in volunteer positions and working with children?
    It is about the hysteria that has engulfed society with regard to the protection of children and how this justified such discrimination against men.

    You cannot defend such hysteria without accepting similar policies directed against families, and defend it is what you're doing; bizarrely on the basis of remaining ignorant of the issues and trusting that our elected politicians know best.

    Did you believed Bertie too when he said the property market would have a soft landing?


  • Options
    #147
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    iptba wrote: »
    You keep saying "any" safeguards - there are a lot of safeguards possible. If they take a precautionary principle, all sorts of laws and rules could be introduced.

    Not sure if you noticed, but airline companies have a policy where men can't sit beside unaccompanied children: http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuagans/2012/08/14/who-can-sit-next-to-children-on-flights/
    - does that meet your criteria?

    Not sure if you saw it but I added another example of profiling: the UK decide that I could be a terrorist because I'm Irish, so don't let me in (go back 20 years, say).

    Yes, I agree with that. If my young child, boy or girl was alone on a flight for whatever reason I would not disgaree with the airline, and I would have no issue with complying with the rule either.

    So, at least now we are discussing the issue outside of the family. There was another rule I seem to recall, well, maybe not a rule, but santa claus was usally a man, and wasn't a rule brought in where a child now no longer sits on the man's lap? Do I agree? Yes, I do!

    Anyway, we live in a world where men and women are seen as that bit different when it comes to children. Men are seen as a far greater threat to a child in a sexual sense. That is the way it is. The statistcis back up this. What else can we use?


  • Options
    #148
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭iptba


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That makes no sense. Every woman is 'potentially' an abuser too, but apparently you support only imposing draconian restrictions on men.
    That's a good point. If women are also a risk, they should need accompaniment also, and in general, the same rules and suspicion should apply to them.


  • Options
    #149
    iptba
    Registered Users Posts: 4,874 ✭✭✭iptba


    walshb wrote: »
    Yes, I agree with that. If my young child, boy or girl was alone on a flight for whatever reason I would not disgaree with the airline, and I would have no issue with complying with the rule either.
    So individual companies can make up rules as they see fit?

    What about a bookstore saying that men can't be in the children's book section on their own? - see this example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81328048&postcount=39


  • Options
    #150
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    iptba wrote: »
    That's a good point. If women are also a risk, they should need accompaniment also, and in general, the same rules and suspicion should apply to them.

    But the same suspicion does not apply because men historically and naturally have a greater propensity or inclination towards sexual abuse.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #151
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,592 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    iptba wrote: »
    So individual companies can make up rules as they see fit?

    What about a bookstore saying that men can't be in the children's book section on their own? - see this example: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81328048&postcount=39

    Like I said, some rules I would disagree with. This one seems a step too far. But, again, we cannot please everyone. I am sure there are folks who agree with the above rule/guideline.


Advertisement