Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

walshb

I said that in a perfect world that these views would/should not exist. I also said earlier that I as a man would have zero issue with not being allowed sit beside an unaccompanied child on a flight. I can understand and appreciate the perceptions and views in the world we live in. If there was no sex abuse, or if males and females were committing these crimes at an equal rate then I would be wholly against that airline rule. But, the facts are that men are the ones committing the child sexual crimes far more than women. I live in the real world.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, by your logic, in the US, one could argue, not all African Americans are criminals, but given that they represent the vast majority of criminals, both in and out of prison, then we should it is natural that we view them as potential criminals.

No, that's racial profiling. It's like looking at a dog knowing that not all dogs bite.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oddly, were you to say that publicly, outside of a KKK meeting, you'd probably be branded a racist.

but I didn't say it, you added that analogy yourself.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And this is where I object to your and walshb's positions, because beneath the attempts to appear balanced, you're actually down deep holding those very prejudices you claim not to support.

you're right, I hate men, all of them and I hate that I'm a man too :rolleyes: ffs

The Corinthian wrote: »

As to your responses to what I suggested to deal with the situation, I did specify you might add something constructive.

Well here's something constructive for you then. A lot more constructive than your vague examples anyway... How about a push towards getting more men to enroll in childcare courses or to get more involved in social activities with children. Or to get businesses to get more behind the idea, you know like "Daddy's day at the zoo" or something to entice father figures. How about a 'big brother' type society where men can get engaged in a child's life where a father figure isn't present?

Then again, if 1 thing were to go wrong these could easily be labeled as an 'in' for paedophiles just like the church was.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

I live in the real world.

Not really, because you are still damning an entire group based upon a tiny minorty of within it, just as a racist in the US will see all African-Americans as suspect based upon a minority of them. That's not the real world, it's just lazy pigeon-holing based upon simplistic profiling - better known as bigotry.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

No, that's racial profiling. It's like looking at a dog knowing that not all dogs bite.

And racial profiling differs from other types of profiling how exactly?

Well here's something constructive for you then. A lot more constructive than your vague examples anyway... How about a push towards getting more men to enroll in childcare courses or to get more involved in social activities with children. Or to get businesses to get more behind the idea, you know like "Daddy's day at the zoo" or something to entice father figures. How about a 'big brother' type society where men can get engaged in a child's life where a father figure isn't present?

These are actually not bad ideas.

Then again, if 1 thing were to go wrong these could easily be labeled as an 'in' for paedophiles just like the church was.

So, shall we just forget it then and just accept the hysteria? Does that work for you?

sha the man

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

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

there one and the same not engaging in relationships is part of not interacting with society. then only reason i brought that aspect of it was because you did originally

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

So, shall we just forget it then and just accept the hysteria? Does that work for you?

I came up with the ideas, which you admit are good. I'm not saying forget them, it's just a warning regarding getting involved in such ideas in the same way you'd tell someone who was doing a parachute jump to be careful... the vast majority of parachutes don't fail, but some do.

Such platforms as big brother scenarios would need screening and would more than likely be better off as organised voluntary group events.

LeeHoffmann

there one and the same not engaging in relationships is part of not interacting with society.

part of but not equal to - ie not engaging in relationships is a subset of not interacting with society. What you actually said is that you

outwardly avoid all contact with everyone

I don´t know what this means:

then only reason i brought that aspect of it was because you did originally

sha the man

for what it worth i think the best solution is for me to castrate myself put it in a jar and hand it over to my local boss (woman) and she can hand it back whenever she feels like it. you know just because i drive a car does not been i want to run someone down. we men have a penis the penis has two functions expelling of urine and penetration of the vagina. that is a mechanical fact. what is not a mechanical fact is that we have the desire or need to stick it into everything and everyone we come across. if that was the case my dog would not be same around me. end of rant

LeeHoffmann

for what it worth i think the best solution is for me to castrate myself put it in a jar and hand it over to my local boss (woman) and she can hand it back whenever she feels like it. you know just because i drive a car does not been i want to run someone down. we men have a penis the penis has two functions expelling of urine and penetration of the vagina. that is a mechanical fact. what is not a mechanical fact is that we have the desire or need to stick it into everything and everyone we come across. if that was the case my dog would not be same around me. end of rant

damn right that´s a rant and a half. :pac: Was it aimed at any post/poster in particular?

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I came up with the ideas, which you admit are good. I'm not saying forget them, it's just a warning regarding getting involved in such ideas in the same way you'd tell someone who was doing a parachute jump to be careful... the vast majority of parachutes don't fail, but some do.

Such platforms as big brother scenarios would need screening and would more than likely be better off as organised voluntary group events.

Fair enough.

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

-I think there is a lot of cases here of people simply saying "Oh I would like to do this but I'm afraid of getting accused of x, y and z". Fair enough BUT you can't blame this on anyone. It's like me saying I would love a particular job in a particular company but it's 100% men, office based and I would be afraid of the consequences in working in such an environment. If I take the job, there is a small chance of my irking assumptions that I will be treated differently, maybe challenged about my abilities in a "mans world" etc. OR I take the job, and find there are no problems at all.

But there has been all sorts of drives to make the workplace a safe place for women. And there are all sorts of laws against sexual discrimination, sexual harrassment, etc. I do not see similar drives or laws to deal with the issues that are being raised.

What you wrote perhaps could be summarised as people should "man up" and stop complaining?

jaffacakesyum

iptba wrote: »

But there has been all sorts of drives to make the workplace a safe place for women. And there are all sorts of laws against sexual discrimination, sexual harrassment, etc. I do not see similar drives or laws to deal with the issues that are being raised.

What you wrote perhaps could be summarised as people should "man up" and stop complaining?

Nope, not at all. Yet another case of putting words in my mouth. Seems pretty common in this thread to do that.

What laws would you suggest are put in place? (Not being smart, I genuinely am interested because as I said, which people choose to ignore, is that I think it's a shame men are turned off these careers. And on that note, I think a far greater turn off for men in these careers is simply that they're not interested in these careers, same way historically women aren't as interested in engineering/mathematical careers).

If a woman goes into the workplace, there is a risk she will be sexually assaulted. Should, therefore, all women stay at home and not bother working?

If a man takes a job as a teacher, there is a risk he may be accused of being a paedophile. Should, therefore, all men never become teachers?

If a man or woman becomes a doctor, there is a risk he/she will be accused of malpractice. Should, therefore nobody become doctors?

If a man is accused of being a paedophile on no basis whatsoever, no children ever coming forward to say he did something inappropriate, no evidence, no nothing. Then come forward and say that. Sue the person who is slandering your name.

I had a male teacher as a primary school teacher, nothing was ever said, no jokes or anything. I've had male PE school teachers. I've only ever had male coaches in the sports I took part in in school, college and outside of those. I really don't think it's such a huge problem as people are making it out in this thread. It is a problem nonetheless.

Piliger

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Nope, not at all. Yet another case of putting words in my mouth. Seems pretty common in this thread to do that.

The only one putting words in your mouth is you, and then you back off and back track.

Your naivete is profound. Your sense of proportionality disturbingly daft, and your sense of smug security is scary.

sha the man

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

damn right that´s a rant and a half. :pac: Was it aimed at any post/poster in particular?

you are attempting to draw me out are you sure you are not in the legal profession or are you a woman. i am shutting down this topic n my brain for the time being goodbye :cool:

smash

Piliger wrote: »

The only one putting words in your mouth is you, and then you back off and back track.

Your naivete is profound. Your sense of proportionality disturbingly daft, and your sense of smug security is scary.

Not the first time you've attacked a poster and not the post in this thread.

I do believe that's against boards rules which results in a ban.

jaffacakesyum

Piliger wrote: »

The only one putting words in your mouth is you, and then you back off and back track.

Your naivete is profound. Your sense of proportionality disturbingly daft, and your sense of smug security is scary.

Well aren't you lovely. :pac: If I was the type to bother reporting posts, this one would be it.

Are we here to have a discussion like adults are we here to be petty and snide?

I've responded to your post, outlining my views. It's up to you if you want to respond to my points like a mature adult.

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I've responded to your post, outlining my views. It's up to you if you want to respond to my points like a mature adult.

Are you getting Piliger and me mixed up?

jaffacakesyum

iptba wrote: »

Are you getting Piliger and me mixed up?

Apologies, iptba.

Nonetheless, I don't see the value in Piliger quoting my post if he's not going to respond to the points in it. No point in resorting to name calling.

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Apologies, iptba.

No worries.

LeeHoffmann

you are attempting to draw me out are you sure you are not in the legal profession or are you a woman. i am shutting down this topic n my brain for the time being goodbye

wha? goodbye i guess

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really, because you are still damning an entire group based upon a tiny minorty of within it, just as a racist in the US will see all African-Americans as suspect based upon a minority of them. That's not the real world, it's just lazy pigeon-holing based upon simplistic profiling - better known as bigotry.

I know well that a small minority of men are paedophiles. My issue is with their rate compared to women. That rate is damning. And for this reason I see no issue with folks being a lot more alert and on their toes when it comes to males being involved with their children as opposed to females.

Paedophiles don't have paedophile stickers on their foreheads, so nobody can really know. In relation to working with children: Best course of action here is to treat every person as a possible threat, male and female, and work from there. Now, bearing in mind that males are the ones committing the sexual crimes far more than women, then it's only logical that males will come in for more attention.

BTW, research and experts think that the prevalance for paedophilia is about 5 percent of our population. It's small compared to the whole, but take any town with say 10000 people. That would see that about 500 people could be paedophiles. That is a lot of people when you line them up in a relatively small area. Now, of that 500 I reckon males would make up 9-10 times more numbers according to research.

Zulu

What research please?

walshb

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618?journalCode=clinpsy

BTW, it's not definite. I posted another link somewhere in this thread too.

Anyway, even allowing for a sway either side, it doesn't take away from the facts that males commit more sexual crimes against people/children than women do.

Zulu

That link only seems to provide a definition of the word; a subscription is required.

bfocusd

I think the media are putting a lot of fear into people that for so many years all of the notorious abuse went unnoticed so now people won't allow their kids with men just in case something could happen.

My family lived next to a man that was found out to be abusing his sons, one committed suicide then the other opened up about the abuse, the father also allowed a convicted ballyfermot priest stay in the house and allowed him mind the children regularly, after years of abuse and it finally being spoken about the mother insisted she knew nothing, but I'm sure if it was the other way around and the father said he knew nothing it would be a different story and he would be guilty until proven innocent, because the majority's immediate reaction is no mother could allow that happen to her kids, she mustn't of known.

Also my uncle has two kids and when they were out with him shopping say, he could rarely change them himself as men's toilets don't have the facilities, if he asked to use the disabled toilet he was looked at like 'you want a room alone with them?!!'
Eventually he got so tired of people commenting and making out that he was up to something, he used to use the facility in the women's toilets, you'd think that he was a pervert for entering the women's toilets, but nope, the amount of them that commented on him bringing the kids there because its safer than the gents was ridiculous and he was never stopped to enter the ladies toilets either. I think they may have thought some pervert was going to watch him changing the kids or something, but he was applauded for it, the women would even strike up conversation about the kids and how he's great with the kids..

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

That link only seems to provide a definition of the word; a subscription is required.

"The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known,[3][61] but is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%.[3][64] "Most sexual offenders against children are male, although female offenders may account for 0.4% to 4% of convicted sexual offenders. On the basis of a range of published reports, McConaghy estimates a 10 to 1 ratio of male-to-female child molesters." It is believed that the true number of female pedophiles is underrepresented by available estimates, and that reasons for this may include a "societal tendency to dismiss the negative impact of sexual relationships between young boys and adult women, as well as women’s greater access to very young children who cannot report their abuse", among other explanations.[20]"

Source is from wikipedia.

Anyway, the general point I was making was that I felt it not at all odd or illogical for society to be more alert and on their toes as regards males working with children as opposed to females working with children.

walshb

bfocusd wrote: »

the mother insisted she knew nothing, but I'm sure if it was the other way around and the father said he knew nothing it would be a different story and he would be guilty until proven innocent, because the majority's immediate reaction is no mother could allow that happen to her kids, she mustn't of known.
.

You can damn well bet she knew. I agree with your point here.

As for your uncle using the ladies toilets. No, I don't think that should be allowed or condoned. I would be suprised if some women didn't protest.

bfocusd

walshb wrote: »

You can damn well bet she knew. I agree with your point here.

As for your uncle using the ladies toilets. No, I don't think that should be allowed or condoned. I would be suprised if some women didn't protest.

He used the changing stand, never went into the toilets, it was the only place he could change them as some places the disabled toilet is the ladies also, I wouldn't promote it, but as there are no facilities in the gents, what else can you do? He honestly got more nasty looks going into the gents with two babies/toddlers than as a man with the kids entering the ladies. He changed them then left.. Even elderly women were saying its better than bringing them into the men's.

walshb

bfocusd wrote: »

He used the changing stand, never went into the toilets, it was the only place he could change them as some places the disabled toilet is the ladies also, I wouldn't promote it, but as there are no facilities in the gents, what else can you do? He honestly got more nasty looks going into the gents with two babies/toddlers than as a man with the kids entering the ladies. He changed them then left.. Even elderly women were saying its better than bringing them into the men's.

Not saying that some women would not have an issue. But for the sake of being on the level what if a man was using the children as some bait to enter the toilets? I mean, that has to be looked at. Any woman would be well within her rights to protest, and to question his actions. It's not the womens' fault or problem that the mens toliets may not have change facilities. That's his problem.

Not related to your uncle specifically: I wouldn't criticise any woman for having the view that: "How the hell do I know that this man isn't using his children to gain access to the ladies toilets."

If the changing facility is inside the ladies toilets then that is a problem. Anyway, these places should have a baby changing facility, not in the mens or the womens. A baby change facility to avoid any of these potential problems.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

Anyway, the general point I was making was that I felt it not at all odd or illogical for society to be more alert and on their toes as regards males working with children as opposed to females working with children.

Sadly there's a big difference between being "alert" and being "paranoid". I'd argue society is more the later.

Taking your numbers on face value, I'd be interested to see a beer-mat calculation of the odds of being attacked by one of those paedophiles!

Interestingly, apparently, there's a 1 in 3000 chance of you being struck by lightning. Avoiding the use of golf clubs during a lightning storm would be being "alert" to this fact. Avoiding grey clouds altogether would be being paranoid about it.

Where am I going with this? Well avoiding sexual offenders would be being "alert", whereas, avoiding men altogether is simply paranoid.