Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

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.

I know what you are saying. But, all I am saying is that when it comes down to males and females being looked at or assessed for child care roles etc, that females will be less scrutinised, and for reasons that I personally fully understand. I don't think anyone is saying that males should be completely avoided.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

I know what you are saying. But, all I am saying is that when it comes down to males and females being looked at or assessed for child care roles etc, that females will be less scrutinised, and for reasons that I personally fully understand. I don't think anyone is saying that males should be completely avoided.

I get that, but a society which has previously decided that this is wrong; a society that deems this unacceptable in all other aspects, now appears to make an exception when it comes to men. Which is appalling.

Scrutinising travellers more, simply because they are travellers is deemed unacceptable.
Scrutinising women more, simply because they are women is deemed unacceptable.
Scrutinising Roma more, simply because they are Roma gypsies is deemed unacceptable.
Scrutinising Jews more, simply because they are jewish is deemed unacceptable.
Scrutinising Nigerians more, simply because they are from Nigeria is deemed unacceptable.
But, scrutinising men more, simply because they are men is acceptable.

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

I get that, but a society which has previously decided that this is wrong; a society that deems this unacceptable in all other aspects, now appears to make an exception when it comes to men. Which is appalling.

But, scrutinising men more, simply because they are men is acceptable.

I don't see a problem with this scenario as regards sexual crimes against children. If women were the main offenders I would have zero issue with them being scrutinised more. If all things were equal then I would hope that men and women would be scrutinised equally. As it stands today it is males that are the ones committing the crimes to a far greater number. Surely it makes logical sense that they will then come in for more scrutiny?

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

I don't see a problem with this scenario as regards sexual crimes against children.... it makes logical sense that they will then come in for more scrutiny?

So in essence, are you saying you have no issue with discriminating against men when it comes to child care?

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

So in essence, are you saying you have no issue with discriminating against men when it comes to child care?

I don't see an issue with males being perceived and viewed and scrutinised that bit more when it comes to working with children. It's not ideal, and if males weren't the ones showing the far greater capacity to commit sex crimes against children then we wouldn't be here.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

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.

Yet were you to replace the words 'men' with 'blacks' and 'paedophiles' with 'criminals', you would rightly be identified as a racist - a bigot.

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.

It's funny how the bigotry and hysteria has a tendency to obfuscate the facts:

"A major difference between boy victims and girl victims is... boys are more likely to be abused by females than are girls" - Source

"The 2000 AAUW data indicate that 57.2 percent of all students report a male offender and 42.4 percent a female offender with the Cameron et al. study reporting nearly identical proportions as the 2000 AAUW data (57 percent male offenders vs. 43 percent female offenders)." - Source

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

I don't see an issue with males being perceived and viewed and scrutinised that bit more when it comes to working with children. It's not ideal, and if males weren't the ones showing the far greater capacity to commit sex crimes against children then we wouldn't be here.

I asked you a straight question walshb, I'd appreciate a straight answer.

...because it sounds an awful lot like you are condoning sexual discrimination.

And, as TC said, if "you to replace the words 'men' with 'blacks' and 'paedophiles' with 'criminals', you would rightly be identified as a racist - a bigot."

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

I asked you a straight question walshb, I'd appreciate a straight answer.

...because it sounds an awful lot like you are condoning sexual discrimination.
."

I have no issue. Not at this time in the world!

I would gave thought that my view on the whole airline "rule" would have made my position clear.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

I have no issue. Not at this time in the world!

I would gave thought that my view on the whole airline "rule" would have made my position clear.

I just want you to come out and admit that you are happy to support gender discrimination (if you do).

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

I just want you to come out and admit that you are happy to support gender discrimination (if you do).

Depending on each circumstance I make a decision. This one: Men being scrutinised more than women when taking up roles with children in the workplace. I have no problem there. You want to call that discrimination, that is ok. I have no problem with it.

Another example is women getting, or having gotten cheaper car insurance policies. Tough on us men, but again, I wouldn't slate an insurance company for their rationale behind what they are doing. So, I have no gripe there.

I can't think of any more at this time. If you do please post them and I will make a call.

Each situation and circumstance is different. But, if supporting one gender discrimination circumstance gets me labeled, fine by me.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

Depending on each circumstance I make a decision.

Would you support employment discrimination against travellers on the basis that they are more likely to be commit a criminal offence?

Or, would you support educational discrimination against travellers on the basis that they are more likely to act aggressively towards other children in the playground,they are more likely to be truant, they require greater resources which could (arguably) be better spent on settled children?

walshb

Zulu wrote: »

Would you support employment discrimination against travellers on the basis that they are more likely to be commit a criminal offence?

Or, would you support educational discrimination against travellers on the basis that they are more likely to act aggressively towards other children in the playground,they are more likely to be truant, they require greater resources which could (arguably) be better spent on settled children?

Your questions are not specific to gender.

Zulu

walshb wrote: »

Your questions are not specific to gender.

So you won't answer the questions then? What if I phase them as "traveller males", then they'd be gender specific.

Is it only gender discrimination you deal with on a case-by-case basis?

Do you condon any other form of discrimination?
Why don't you apply the same logic to all other discrimination?

daddyorchips

I feel the same sometimes with my partners nieces and nephews I get on great with children always have and never had a problem with any of them but the other day I asked one of the older children to help me carry something from upstairs and his father who knows I always have a game of ball or play xbox with him always on our own gave me a look as if to say why do you want him to go upstairs which really hurt it affected me in such a way that I don't think I could play ball or even look at the kid anymore without a suspicion falling on me I should mention that I sometimes get asked to look after the kids on my own which from now on I will say no too.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

Another example is women getting, or having gotten cheaper car insurance policies. Tough on us men, but again, I wouldn't slate an insurance company for their rationale behind what they are doing. So, I have no gripe there.

By the same logic, discriminating against female job candidates of child-baring age would be fine as it is also discrimination, based upon statistic, for commercial reasons. Can you confirm that that you have no gripe there either, otherwise please explain what differentiates one from the other?

walshb

No gripe when it is shown that a certain group do not make it safe or rewarding or healthy, as opposed to a different group. I know, it may sound harsh, but we as humans do this. It is a part of us. And, maybe someday I will be in a group and maybe then I will be aggrieved.

Edit: I was in a group. The insurance policy group for male drivers.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

No gripe when it is shown that a certain group do not make it safe or rewarding or healthy, as opposed to a differnt group. I know, it may sound harsh, but we as humans do this. It is a part of us. And, maybe someday I will be in a group and maybe then I will be aggrieved.

So you have no problem with discriminating against women job candidates of child baring age. Grand so; my previous conclusion stands.

nucker

I do believe that some people are using the excuse of paedophilia to tarnish a person's reputation. Even if they are arrested and not even charged with anything people are painting men as paedophiles, which is stupid. It's like finding them guilty w/o a trial and even a judge and jury i.e. "they are the law, so therefore right all the time" scenario

After the Sarah Payne murder, even paediatricians were attacked because people thought that "paediatricians" meant paedophiles

iptba

Upsetting to read:

New Zealand Father Loses Family Over False Sex Abuse Charges
http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2012/11/05/new-zealand-father-loses-family-over-false-sex-abuse-charges/

The Corinthian

iptba wrote: »

Upsetting to read:

Well, apparently it may sound harsh, but we as humans do this. You can't please everyone, I'm told...

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, apparently it may sound harsh, but we as humans do this. You can't please everyone, I'm told...

Did you read the article? If you had then you'd realise how silly your little remark aimed at a few posers on this thread actually is. It was clearly a bs case from the start.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Did you read the article? If you had then you'd realise how silly your little remark aimed at a few posers on this thread actually is. It was clearly a bs case from the start.

I did read it and it was a BS case that spun out of control only because of the culture of hysteria that has developed around this issue, as defended by a few posers on this thread.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

I did read it and it was a BS case that spun out of control only because of the culture of hysteria that has developed around this issue, as defended by a few posers on this thread.

It did not spin out of control because of a culture of hysteria. It sounded like some kind of personal vendetta to be honest. Police not willing to take statements, ignoring facts and witness reports. It was a pure bullshít case, but it wasn't hysteria driven.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

It did not spin out of control because of a culture of hysteria. It sounded like some kind of personal vendetta to be honest. Police not willing to take statements, ignoring facts and witness reports. It was a pure bullshít case, but it wasn't hysteria driven.

Without the present culture of hysteria, such BS cases would simply not happen. It simply would not have been able to get to that level were it not for the culture that not only allows but promotes an abandonment of reason on such accusations.

Whether the motive was vendetta or well-meaning idiocy or something else, it would never have been able to occur without the environment that this hysteria has fostered - an environment that has been effectively supported by a number of apologists in this thread.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Without the present culture of hysteria, such BS cases would simply not happen. It simply would not have been able to get to that level were it not for the culture that not only allows but promotes an abandonment of reason on such accusations.

Whether the motive was vendetta or well-meaning idiocy or something else, it would never have been able to occur without the environment that this hysteria has fostered - an environment that has been effectively supported by a number of apologists in this thread.

That's complete rubbish. It happens every day with rape cases, assault cases etc and it's not because of hysteria.

The fact of the case in question is that the claim was dismissed and then 3 months later he was arrested and held for 20 months without evidence. This is nothing to do with hysteria.

Your extremest views are ludicrous and your attempt to drag down other people's opinions is nothing but petty.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

That's complete rubbish. It happens every day with rape cases, assault cases etc and it's not because of hysteria.

The fact of the case in question is that the claim was dismissed and then 3 months later he was arrested and held for 20 months without evidence. This is nothing to do with hysteria.

Your extremest views are ludicrous and your attempt to drag down other people's opinions is nothing but petty.

I see extremism only in your views.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Without the present culture of hysteria, such BS cases would simply not happen. It simply would not have been able to get to that level were it not for the culture that not only allows but promotes an abandonment of reason on such accusations.

Whether the motive was vendetta or well-meaning idiocy or something else, it would never have been able to occur without the environment that this hysteria has fostered - an environment that has been effectively supported by a number of apologists in this thread.

Exactly. The current hysteria in society on this topic, and the 'suspicion' that every man is a potential abuser, and any man accused simply 'must' be guilty ... is what led to this case.

There is no evidence that this group of Police and Prosecutors had any personal vendetta against this man outside the fact that they all were convinced he was guilty. This irrational conviction arose from the irrational hysteria we are talking about.

It reminds me of the hysteria in the UK at the time of the Guildford four and Birmingham six. People felt threatened and hence they were ready to believe that any Irish people that were accused of terrorism MUST be guilty ... irrespective of any rational assessment and the huge size of the Anglo-Irish population in the UK. This is what led to a dreadful miscarriage of justice.

This is what happened when this kind of irrational thinking and hysteria takes a grip of a society. And this is what happened in this case. But this case is only the extreme end of a long string. Many men are suffering deeply unjust prejudice here in Ireland elsewhere for exactly the same reasons.

iptba

smash wrote: »

The fact of the case in question is that the claim was dismissed and then 3 months later he was arrested and held for 20 months without evidence. This is nothing to do with hysteria.

If we move away from the word hysteria, probably the more accurate or interesting question to ask is whether what happened is the only or optimal way of doing things, or whether a better way would be possible. Are you saying you think they dealt with it in the only or best way available?

smash

Piliger wrote: »

I see extremism only in your views.

That's because your views are skewed. You think the world is out to get you and you believe if people aren't with you then their against you.

Piliger wrote: »

Exactly. The current hysteria in society on this topic, and the 'suspicion' that every man is a potential abuser, and any man accused simply 'must' be guilty ... is what led to this case.

Show me where you got that from?

Piliger wrote: »

There is no evidence that this group of Police and Prosecutors had any personal vendetta against this man outside the fact that they all were convinced he was guilty. This irrational conviction arose from the irrational hysteria we are talking about.

No, the irrational conviction arose from a report of a supposed incident and then the police ignored other witness reports.

iptba wrote: »

If we move away from the word hysteria, probably the more accurate or interesting question to ask is whether what happened is the only or optimal way of doing things, or whether a better way would be possible. Are you saying you think they dealt with it in the only or best way available?

I never said anything of the sort and I don't know how you could possible have come to that conclusion. I think it's a complete farce.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

That's because your views are skewed. You think the world is out to get you and you believe if people aren't with you then their against you.

Pot ... Kettle ... Black. :rolleyes: