Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

smash

Zulu wrote: »

Well considering I took to understanding the post as it was meant, yes. Of course this begs the question: can you read?

Considering he referenced the two of us, it wasn't very clear now was it.

iptba wrote: »

I actually made the point early about the prison population: does this mean it would be ok to discriminate against people from run down areas?

Why would you do that? I never mentioned discrimination, just the fact that the words can be changed to be non gender or race specific.

walshb

iptba wrote: »

Except men never got cheaper rates here, as far as I know.

I am not sure how the general health insurance rates compare for the general man and woman. But, don't studies show that in general women live that bit longer?

iptba

smash wrote: »

Why would you do that? I never mentioned discrimination, just the fact that the words can be changed to be non gender or race specific.

You mentioned discrimination numerous times on the previous page, and said it would be ok if statistics justified it.

iptba

walshb wrote: »

I am not sure how comparable the general rates are for the general man and woman.

I don't recall seeing the figures, but I recall hearing women cost insurance companies much more - I can't remember if it was multiples or not.

One could have one rate for women and one rate for men so people of different ages could help subsidise each other.

smash

iptba wrote: »

You mentioned discrimination numerous times on the previous page, and said it would be ok if statistics justified it.

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

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Those statistics can be quite easily changed to replace the words "African-Americans" with "People from run down areas" and the stats still match up. After all you can forget the fact they're black and look at the fact that the crimes are happening in run down areas or by people from these areas. It's not race specific unless you make it.

Just like you can find far better correlations with child abuse than simply men, like people who are related to the child or people who have themselves been abused as children. But as with African-Americans versus people living in deprived economic areas, not as easily identifiable for the bigots out there.

So now lets look again at the fact that most cases of paedophilia or molestation have a male perpetrator. Forget hysteria for a minute and look at that fact and try and replace the word "male" with something that's not gender specific.

Relatives. Statistically, regardless of gender, this is who commits the vast majority of abuse.

Gender is, other than an example of bigotry, is frankly a poor means of protecting children too. Other than the much stronger link between the victim being abused by a relative, rather than any random male, there's also the fact that in the case of the abuse of boys, up to 40% are abused by women, not men - gender based prejudice in this regards would not serve to keep parents "on their toes" as you claimed earlier, but create a false sense of security for parents who see only men as potential predictors.

Justifying such sweeping prejudices ultimately cause more harm than good.

walshb

iptba wrote: »

I don't recall seeing the figures, but I recall hearing women cost insurance companies much more - I can't remember if it was multiples or not.

Yet they pay the same, or less? Hmm. Strange. But I guess a more indepth study would maybe reveal reasons.

Anyway, in general I think that these discrimination scenarios are not arising due to intolerance and bigotry and hatred, as some here would like to think, but they are arising due to commerce and buisness and money and jobs etc. It is the world as we know it. I can understand completely reasons for it.

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Relatives. Statistically, regardless of gender, this is who commits the vast majority of abuse.

.

Yes, and of them relatives it is a male who mostly is the perpetrator. You keep trying to replace the male with something else. Why? Ok, male relatives mostly commit sex crimes against children. You cannot escape that male decription no matter what you do.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

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

Grand so. It's only racist, and I presume sexist, if you decide it is. So were I to discriminate against women of child baring age for a job, then it's only sexist if I choose to believe it is. Or if one bars blacks from entering their store, it's not really racist unless I think it is? Or maybe if they believe it? Maybe it's all in the mind then.

Whatever about seeing things as black and white, I've rarely seen anyone argue so hard that black is white. It's getting ridiculous and has completely ruined this thread.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Just like you can find far better correlations with child abuse than simply men, like people who are related to the child or people who have themselves been abused as children.

And what sex would you say the abuser generally is in these cases?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Other than the much stronger link between the victim being abused by a relative, rather than any random male, there's also the fact that in the case of the abuse of boys, up to 40% are abused by women, not men - gender based prejudice in this regards would not serve to keep parents "on their toes" as you claimed earlier, but create a false sense of security for parents who see only men as potential predictors.

And what about the abuse of girls? What's the percentage of female abusers there? Is it the same of lower?

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and of them relatives it is a male who mostly is the perpetrator.

Yet related female perpetrators are apparently more common than unrelated male ones - dramatically so if you include physical abuse also.

You keep trying to replace the male with something else. Why?

Because I am trying to point out to you that it is not as simple as men bad, women good, which is essentially all this kind of hysteria does. Can you not see this?

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Grand so. It's only racist, and I presume sexist, if you decide it is. So were I to discriminate against women of child baring age for a job, then it's only sexist if I choose to believe it is.

Based on what statistic would you discriminate against them for being of child baring age?

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or if one bars blacks from entering their store, it's not really racist unless I think it is? Or maybe if they believe it? Maybe it's all in the mind then.

Based on what statistic would you bar a black person from your store? An american one?

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's getting ridiculous and has completely ruined this thread.

The only one ruining the thread is you with these silly claims. Because we disagree and are arguing our points you equate this to one side ruining a thread. Silly!

Pawwed Rig

walshb wrote: »

But I guess a more indepth study would maybe reveal reasons.

It is a political decision called community rating. This is the reason older people (who cost more in medical care) pay the same premiums as the younger people with the result that the young people essentially subsidise the older. Which is hypocritical then when the young are victimised for car insurance, young males especially.

Women also tend to cost more than men in health as they get pregnant and are more inclined to visit doctors more regularly.
Men in general (as we are generalising here) are more likely to play sports and have a healthy lifestyle (at a young age at least)

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

And what sex would you say the abuser generally is in these cases?

With girls it is more likely to be men. With boys it appears to be far more evenly balanced between men and women.

And what about the abuse of girls? What's the percentage of female abusers there? Is it the same of lower?

And this makes it rational to ignore female abusers in your prejudicial framework? Are you serious?

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

The only one ruining the thread is you with these silly claims. Because we disagree and are arguing our points you equate this to one side ruining a thread?

Oh, I'm sorry, would you prefer if I simply agree with you that this hysteria is all in our imagination and all prejudice against men in this area is perfectly justified?

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because I am trying to point out to you that it is not as simple as men bad, women good, which is essentially all this kind of hysteria does. Can you not see this?

Nobody suggested that. What people have suggested is the potential outcome of a specif instance (paedophilia in this case) would lead to a "man bad" result. Notice I said man, not men. Because it's not all men.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

With girls it is more likely to be men. With boys it appears to be far more evenly balanced between men and women.

60>40 still tips the scale enough.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And this makes it rational to ignore female abusers in your prejudicial framework? Are you serious?

I never said ignore female abusers. I asked a question so answer it if you can:

"And what about the abuse of girls? What's the percentage of female abusers there? Is it the same of lower?"

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Oh, I'm sorry, would you prefer if I simply agree with you that this hysteria is all in our imagination and all prejudice against men in this area is perfectly justified?

No. Disagree. That is fine. But why are we the ones ruining the thread if we do not see the hysteria/prejudice etc the same way you do?

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Based on what statistic would you discriminate against them for being of child baring age?

Women of child baring age, especially newly-weds are significantly more likely to get pregnant. If and when that happens, this means loss of a resource for the company, at least for a few months (where a temp may have to be hired) and with no guarantee that the employee (for whom you're legally obliged to hold her job) will return - very often they won't. The cost to companies, especially SME's, can be significant.

As a result many HR departments will actively discriminate against female candidates who are between 28 and 38 years of age. If you want sources on this, it won't take long to find them using Google.

Based on what statistic would you bar a black person from your store? An american one?

I was specifically speaking of African-Americans, hence my use of the word 'store'. Do you still require statistics or do you accept that African-Americans disproportionately represent criminal behaviour on a statistical level?

smash wrote: »

Notice I said man, not men. Because it's not all men.

Actually you have, because once you accept prejudice based upon gender it becomes all men. After all, we're not debating discrimination against a small number of men here.

smash wrote: »

I never said ignore female abusers.

Yet this prejudice that you have been defending here does precisely that, so ultimately you are supporting a policy that does ignore female abusers.

Somehow, if even 50.1% of abusers were male, you are happy to follow a policy that only targets males on the bases that males are the majority. It's an incredibly harmful policy in that it ignores what is a complex problem and seeks to deal with it in a simplistic manner.

walshb wrote: »

No. Disagree. That is fine. But why are we the ones ruining the thread if we do not see the hysteria/prejudice etc the same way you do?

Because by doing so you are perpetuating the titular problem posed in this thread. You're basically part of the problem.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Women of child baring age, especially newly-weds are significantly more likely to get pregnant. If and when that happens, this means loss of a resource for the company, at least for a few months (where a temp may have to be hired) and with no guarantee that the employee (for whom you're legally obliged to hold her job) will return - very often they won't. The cost to companies, especially SME's, can be significant.

As a result many HR departments will actively discriminate against female candidates who are between 28 and 38 years of age. If you want sources on this, it won't take long to find them using Google.

You see you're asking if it's ok to do this, but the fact is that this does happen already every day. It makes business sense to be wary of these risks.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I was specifically speaking of African-Americans, hence my use of the word 'store'. Do you still require statistics or do you accept that African-Americans disproportionately represent criminal behaviour on a statistical level?

But like I pointed out, you can change those words to be non race specific.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually you have, because once you accept prejudice based upon gender it becomes all men. After all, we're not debating discrimination against a small number of men here.

Are all men football thugs? No. But if a man is wearing a football jersey the likelihood becomes stronger.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Yet this prejudice that you have been defending here does precisely that, so ultimately you are supporting a policy that does ignore female abusers.

no, we're not talking about female abusers.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Somehow, if even 50.1% of abusers were male, you are happy to follow a policy that only targets males on the bases that males are the majority.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Making up statistics to suit your argument isn't going to work because it's not 50.1% is it?

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's an incredibly harmful policy in that it ignores what is a complex problem and seeks to deal with it in a simplistic manner.

I've asked before so I'll ask again. How do you think it should be dealt with?

Zulu

smash wrote: »

You see you're asking if it's ok to do this, but the fact is that this does happen already every day. It makes business sense to be wary of these risks.

And it's also illegal. Society has deemed it not to be acceptable. Employment law protects these women.

Are all men football thugs? No. But if a man is wearing a football jersey the likelihood becomes stronger.

So, it's somewhat acceptable to ban all men from football matches, right? Based on the stats, right?? Better safe than sorry; keep on your toes and all that, right???

But of course you are right, we should just accept blatant & ignorant prejudice.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

You see you're asking if it's ok to do this, but the fact is that this does happen already every day. It makes business sense to be wary of these risks.

I didn't ask if it already happens, I asked if this is acceptable to you. Business risks there may be, but it's still illegal to discriminate in this way and rightly so. But I take it that you agree with such discrimination then?

But like I pointed out, you can change those words to be non race specific.

You can also replace 'man' with 'relative' and be non gender specific.

Of course you might then argue that even as relatives it will still more likely be a man, but then again how many of those people from deprived areas would be African-American in the US? A majority, I suspect.

Are all men football thugs? No. But if a man is wearing a football jersey the likelihood becomes stronger.

LOL. Are all men sexual predators? No. But if they talk to a child the likelihood becomes stronger.

I spoke to a woman on a street last week, am I more likely to be a rapist now?

no, we're not talking about female abusers.

Yes we are, because we're talking about abusers, not simply male ones - you did say we weren't ignoring female abusers, after all?

This is the problem with such hysteria, it's simplistic and as a result of this idiotic simplicity, it brands one group as a threat and ends up lending too much confidence in another, that may be well capable of the same threat.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Making up statistics to suit your argument isn't going to work because it's not 50.1% is it?

Your exact words have been:

"What's the percentage of female abusers there? Is it the same of lower?"
"60>40 still tips the scale enough."

As if even a simple majority makes all the difference. Indeed, how can you be so dismissive of a 40% figure? It's only 40%, so we can just concentrate on men being the real threat, I suppose? Completely unhinged logic, IMHO.

I've asked before so I'll ask again. How do you think it should be dealt with?

And I responded a few pages back and to which you also added constructive suggestions that I even thanked.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

And it's also illegal. Society has deemed it not to be acceptable. Employment law protects these women.

And for good reason. It makes sense to be wary but you accept people on their merits and weigh up the risk.

Zulu wrote: »

So, it's somewhat acceptable to ban all men from football matches, right? Based on the stats, right?? Better safe than sorry; keep on your toes and all that, right???

No you see this risk is assesed and is then combatted by police presence. Think about it will you before you respond.

Zulu wrote: »

But of course you are right, we should just accept blatant & ignorant prejudice.

Nonsense

Zulu

smash wrote: »

And for good reason. It makes sense to be wary but you accept people on their merits and weigh up the risk.

So prejudicism is ok, but it's rightly illegal.

Think about it will you before you respond.

Indeed, heed your own advice.

Nonsense

...a good word to sum up what you are currently posting.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

You can also replace 'man' with 'relative' and be non gender specific.

But you can also break it down to gender specific relatives and men still come out on top.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course you might then argue that even as relatives it will still more likely be a man, but then again how many of those people from deprived areas would be African-American in the US? A majority, I suspect.

A majority... A majority means more scrutinisation is required because the risk is greater. It doesn't mean action must be taken.

The Corinthian wrote: »

LOL. Are all men sexual predators? No. But if they talk to a child the likelihood becomes stronger.

No, doesn't become stronger or weaker. Doesn't affect the stats though.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I spoke to a woman on a street last week, am I more likely to be a rapist now?

It doesn't matter if you talk to 1 woman or 10000 women, the fact that you're male puts you into a category where statistically the higher percentage of rapists are male. It doesn't mean you are one, it just means your gender is part of a crappy statistic.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

So prejudicism is ok, but it's rightly illegal.

The law is there for protection of women's rights in the workplace. There are no laws that say men can't interact with children so a women's rights law holds no bearing over what we're talking about. The only thing in common is a form of risk assessment and as I mentioned, you judge people on their merits.

Zulu

smash wrote: »

The only thing in common is a form of risk assessment and as I mentioned, you judge people on their merits.

In other words: prejudicism. And you aren't talking about judging people on their merits, you were talking about judging people based on their gender.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

In other words: prejudicism. And you aren't talking about judging people on their merits, you were talking about judging people based on their gender.

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

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

A majority... A majority means more scrutinisation is required because the risk is greater. It doesn't mean action must be taken.

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

No, doesn't become stronger or weaker. Doesn't affect the stats though.

But it does change things somehow with the example you gave. Sorry, but at this stage you're just making things up as you go along.

It doesn't matter if you talk to 1 woman or 10000 women, the fact that you're male puts you into a category where statistically the higher percentage of rapists are male. It doesn't mean you are one, it just means your gender is part of a crappy statistic.

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

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

Less said about the other points you ignored the better.