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
Comments
-
Except it's a very poor measure of risk assessment. I say this because using being related (without even having to differentiate between genders) as the primary criteria will already deliver a much more accurate measure of risk and additionally a gender based risk assessment engenders a false sense of security in the gender deemed less threatening, which in the case of the abuse of boys is a very dangerous presumption to make.I said risk assessment based on statistics. But you judge someone based on merit.0 -
My whole point is that scrutinisation is required.The Corinthian wrote: »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?
Because it automatically associates you with a statistic.The Corinthian wrote: »Yet wearing a jersey makes me more likely to be a hooligan. Somehow.
Or you could read where I said the law was there got good reason.The Corinthian wrote: »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.0 -
Which is why I say you judge people on their merits.The Corinthian wrote: »Except it's a very poor measure of risk assessment. I say this because using being related (without even having to differentiate between genders) as the primary criteria will already deliver a much more accurate measure of risk and additionally a gender based risk assessment engenders a false sense of security in the gender deemed less threatening, which in the case of the abuse of boys is a very dangerous presumption to make.
If 2 men are at a playground taking photos, one is with his children laughing and the other is outside peering in with a zoom lens. Who would you be more wary of? The father as he's a relative or the stranger with no aparant reason to be there?0 -
The difference being, you appear support "scrutinisation" at a macro level, where as the rest of us (bwalsh excluded) we are saying that's wrong.My whole point is that scrutinisation is required.
And we are providing other examples where prejudice at a macro level is wrong - racism, sexism, etc..0 -
I fear you don't understand what macro means if you think I support it on a macro level. Especially considering you've been telling me previously that I'm blanket casting assumptions.The difference being, you appear support "scrutinisation" at a macro level, where as the rest of us (bwalsh excluded) we are saying that's wrong.
And we are providing other examples where prejudice at a macro level is wrong - racism, sexism, etc..0 -
Advertisement
-
:rolleyes:I fear you don't understand what macro means if you think I support it on a macro level. Especially considering you've been telling me previously that I'm blanket casting assumptions.
Fear not, like my ability to read which you previously questioned, I also know the meaning of macro. I've added a like for your information, as it would appear you don't have the same grasp of its meaning.
Let me walk your through it: you support prejudicing all men on the basis that some men are sexual predators. That's "scrutiny" on a "macro" level.0 -
That's bigotry and prejudice in action, you should say. It is institutionalising bigotry and prejudice on the back of false and dishonest statistics and using false statistics to prejudice men without any real foundation.Let me walk your through it: you support prejudicing all men on the basis that some men are sexual predators. That's "scrutiny" on a "macro" level.0 -
If he had an okay reputation and wasnt wild or anything i would consider hiring a teenage boy or girl,the gender wouldnt be an issue,but having said that i would probably just pick a girl,just out of habit..
I used to do babysitting when i was younger,boys generally dont do babysitting,and wouldnt offer,it wouldnt be a boy thing,unless it was for their younger siblings etc..Usually boys wouldnt offer for that sort of thing..
Its just the way it is,ingrained i guess..0 -
Ignoring and denial being the rule.The Corinthian wrote: »Less said about the other points you ignored the better.
The distortion and wilful ignorance of statistics and risk as a tool to prejudice Men is rampant and evident in this thread.
If one rape each year were committed per ten thousand red headed males per year, while two rapes each year were committed per ten thousand black headed males per year, would that justify women looking suspiciously at black haired men and would it justify society looking suspiciously at black haired men who walk along dark roads at night ? or sit in parks as women walk or run there ?
It is this kind of nonsensical and ignorant failure to grasp the meaning of risk that is being used to prejudice men and is preventing positive male role models for young people, and hurting our young people across the board.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Curiously, you only started looking for scrutinisation when women as abusers began to be discussed (if this is incorrect, please point out where this was so important before). As such, I believe you're just changing the goalposts since the facts now being presented contradict your earlier thesis.My whole point is that scrutinisation is required.
So if something is illegal it must be bad and if not legislated for it must not be bad. Can you think for yourself?Or you could read where I said the law was there got good reason.
Actually you've been arguing for the last few pages that we should judge people based upon their gender.Which is why I say you judge people on their merits.
But that's not the discussion. We're not discussing men being discriminated against because they behave in a sinister way when in contact with children, but men being discriminated against because they are simply men in contact with children.If 2 men are at a playground taking photos, one is with his children laughing and the other is outside peering in with a zoom lens. Who would you be more wary of? The father as he's a relative or the stranger with no aparant reason to be there?
If a woman were to do that in a playground, I think we'd all be suspicious of her motives too (at least I would hope so, but there's been a bit of denial here the moment women were raised as potential abusers), so what you're presenting now, is nothing more than a straw man.0 -
Which is why I say you judge people on their merits.
If 2 men are at a playground taking photos, one is with his children laughing and the other is outside peering in with a zoom lens. Who would you be more wary of? The father as he's a relative or the stranger with no aparant reason to be there?
It all depends on the zoom lens really, if it is a massive lens and hiding in between the bushes, I would be wary of that man. The "apparent" reason could be that the photographer might be commissioned by the dad/family to take a photo at a different point of view. No two photographers point of view are the same, please don't feed any hysteria by jumping to conclusion, it is counter productive in tackling paedophilia. The photographer could be just simply photographing the park for candid shots
It would be also be understandable if that man wasn't commissioned by the family to take photos and taking photos of children in playground, but like I said, it doesn't help to jump to conclusions. Yes, it would be in the interest to get the Police involved if you have your suspicions about people. But going to harm people just because you have that suspicion is damn right irritating. I'm sure that everyone has the protection of other people's (and their own) children at heart.0 -
Changing the goalposts? I've been talking about the statistics of men being the abusers for a while now, before you mentioned women.The Corinthian wrote: »Curiously, you only started looking for scrutinisation when women as abusers began to be discussed (if this is incorrect, please point out where this was so important before). As such, I believe you're just changing the goalposts since the facts now being presented contradict your earlier thesis.
I never said that now did I. I said the women's workplace law existed for a good reason.The Corinthian wrote: »So if something is illegal it must be bad and if not legislated for it must not be bad. Can you think for yourself?
No, I was saying that people are judged based on statistics they fall into. I've also said numerous times that it's unfortunate.The Corinthian wrote: »Actually you've been arguing for the last few pages that we should judge people based upon their gender.
I never said sinister way. You brought up the stuff about most abusers being relatives, which was you sidetracking the issue. I gave a scenario and asked you to judge based on it... a relative vs a stranger.The Corinthian wrote: »But that's not the discussion. We're not discussing men being discriminated against because they behave in a sinister way when in contact with children, but men being discriminated against because they are simply men in contact with children.
No, what I resented was a scenario and asked you a question based on it given your stance of the abusers mostly being relatives. I already mentioned long ago in this thread that if it was a women people probably wouldn't notice and linked to a thread about the scenario in the photography forum.The Corinthian wrote: »If a woman were to do that in a playground, I think we'd all be suspicious of her motives too (at least I would hope so, but there's been a bit of denial here the moment women were raised as potential abusers), so what you're presenting now, is nothing more than a straw man.
It's a fictional scenario, I'm not jumping to conclusions and have commented on it before in here and the photography forum. I gave the scenario and asked a question as explained above.No two photographers point of view are the same, please don't feed any hysteria by jumping to conclusion, it is counter productive in tackling paedophilia.0 -
Yes, which you didn't want introduced into the discussion and as a result you are changing goalposts to deal with the inconsistencies in your logic this introduction has highlighted.Changing the goalposts? I've been talking about the statistics of men being the abusers for a while now, before you mentioned women.
Well if that wasn't what you were implying, what point were you attempting to make then?I never said that now did I. I said the women's workplace law existed for a good reason.
Unfortunate, but supported by you as a necessary evil, yet you also feel we judge people on their merits. We can't do both, which is it?No, I was saying that people are judged based on statistics they fall into. I've also said numerous times that it's unfortunate.
No, you just put forward one scenario that was blatantly sinister, thus constructing your straw man.I never said sinister way.
Not at all, you were the one who has been waxing lyrical about targeting 'high risk' groups and I simply pointed out that a 'relative' is in a higher risk group than a 'man', so as to demonstrate how ridiculous your reasoning was.You brought up the stuff about most abusers being relatives, which was you sidetracking the issue.
And stranger is the operative word, not man. If a strange woman were to start taking photos on a playground, I would be equally suspicious of her motivations.I gave a scenario and asked you to judge based on it... a relative vs a stranger.
Problem is they should notice; and as I pointed out, relying upon simplistic gender based prejudices ends up blinding you from the dangers of those whom we are not prejudiced against. This is one of the numerous reasons why your and bwalsh's position is fundamentally harmful, even to children.No, what I resented was a scenario and asked you a question based on it given your stance of the abusers mostly being relatives. I already mentioned long ago in this thread that if it was a women people probably wouldn't notice and linked to a thread about the scenario in the photography forum.
And I responded - I'd be more suspicious of the stranger; and not because of their gender.It's a fictional scenario, I'm not jumping to conclusions and have commented on it before in here and the photography forum. I gave the scenario and asked a question as explained above.0 -
It's a fictional scenario, I'm not jumping to conclusions and have commented on it before in here and the photography forum. I gave the scenario and asked a question as explained above.
Fictional or in real life regardless, I hate it when people jump to conclusions about other people. Fair enough, people want to protect their kids, which I can imagine, but they should take their suspicions to the proper authorities0 -
Didn't want introduced? Quoting stats on women has nothing to do with the conversation and doesn't change the stats on men.The Corinthian wrote: »Yes, which you didn't want introduced into the discussion and as a result you are changing goalposts to deal with the inconsistencies in your logic this introduction has highlighted.
Like I already explained. The law is there for a good reason which it to protect women in the workplace. There is no law that says men can't be in contact with children or be childminders so the women's workplace law has no place in this discussion for any comparison reasons.The Corinthian wrote: »Well if that wasn't what you were implying, what point were you attempting to make then?
Live I've said over and over. It is unfortunate, and supporting parents being on their toes regarding paedophilia does not equal supporting discrimination against men.The Corinthian wrote: »Unfortunate, but supported by you as a necessary evil,
You can certainly do both. Like how you keep referring to African American's and crime rates. You recognize the statistics but you don't judge them all the same do you?The Corinthian wrote: »yet you also feel we judge people on their merits. We can't do both, which is it?The Corinthian wrote: »No, you just put forward one scenario that was blatantly sinister, thus constructing your straw man.
I never said men were a high risk group, and I never said to target them. All I said was that extra scrutiny is required in certain circumstances.The Corinthian wrote: »Not at all, you were the one who has been waxing lyrical about targeting 'high risk' groups
But yet it didn't change the figures of male vs female did it? It's just a sub statistic, which in itself still see's a higher percentage of males.The Corinthian wrote: »I simply pointed out that a 'relative' is in a higher risk group than a 'man', so as to demonstrate how ridiculous your reasoning was.
But that's not what I asked you.The Corinthian wrote: »And stranger is the operative word, not man. If a strange woman were to start taking photos on a playground, I would be equally suspicious of her motivations.
My 'position' harms nobody, because I judge people based on behavior and circumstance and not gender, race, age etc.The Corinthian wrote: »Problem is they should notice; and as I pointed out, relying upon simplistic gender based prejudices ends up blinding you from the dangers of those whom we are not prejudiced against. This is one of the numerous reasons why your and bwalsh's position is fundamentally harmful, even to children.
Fine. But I did specify that the stranger was male as that's what we were discussing.The Corinthian wrote: »And I responded - I'd be more suspicious of the stranger; and not because of their gender.
Isn't that adding fuel to the fire? Call the cops... someone is taking photos which is not actually illegal...Fictional or in real life regardless, I hate it when people jump to conclusions about other people. Fair enough, people want to protect their kids, which I can imagine, but they should take their suspicions to the proper authorities0 -
Isn't that adding fuel to the fire? Call the cops... someone is taking photos which is not actually illegal...
Probably, but I can't even think as to why you want to make up a fictional scenario of what happens if you see a "stranger" in a park with a big zoom lens, anyone can be innocently taking a photo of a bird and wildlife that happens to be in the direction of the playground, are you not adding fuel to the fire to those who might react to nothing but an innocent photoshoot?0 -
Unfortunately the hysteria surrounding this area has reached such a level that even the proper authorities are not immune to it, as was linked earlier.Fictional or in real life regardless, I hate it when people jump to conclusions about other people. Fair enough, people want to protect their kids, which I can imagine, but they should take their suspicions to the proper authorities
This is the problem, it's gone way beyond gossiping neighbours and has become so acute that it is literally resulting in a society where men won't go near a child for fear of being branded a paedophile.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Unfortunately the hysteria surrounding this area has reached such a level that even the proper authorities are not immune to it, as was linked earlier.
This is the problem, it's gone way beyond gossiping neighbours and has become so acute that it is literally resulting in a society where men won't go near a child for fear of being branded a paedophile.
I've heard of so many similar situations like that link, I've even heard that paediatricians having their surgeries ransacked because the people thought "it meant paedophile", I mean, who on earth would advertise themselves as paedophiles? Not even the paedophiles themselves would do that0 -
Probably, but I can't even think as to why you want to make up a fictional scenario of what happens if you see a "stranger" in a park with a big zoom lens, anyone can be innocently taking a photo of a bird and wildlife that happens to be in the direction of the playground, are you not adding fuel to the fire to those who might react to nothing but an innocent photoshoot?
Ok maybe you haven't been following the thread recently. The current discussion was about the statistics that show men are a much higher percentage of abusers than women are. TC's point was that it's usually a family member more than a stranger that abuses the children. I made up a scenario of 2 men taking photos but one is a stranger and one is a relative of the child and asked him who he'd be more wary of. It really has nothing to do with taking a photo, that was just the fictional scenario.0 -
Advertisement
-
Ok maybe you haven't been following the thread recently. The current discussion was about the statistics that show men are a much higher percentage of abusers than women are. TC's point was that it's usually a family member more than a stranger that abuses the children. I made up a scenario of 2 men taking photos but one is a stranger and one is a relative of the child and asked him who he'd be more wary of. It really has nothing to do with taking a photo, that was just the fictional scenario.
So? Again, another scenario for you. Say a very rare animal or one of their behaviour (the animal that is) was considered to be newsworthy and it just happened to be in the direction of the playground, would you take a photo of that incident or not because you were scared of being labelled as paedophile. Note, that this shot might lead to instant world fame as a photographer for capturing it, with all the silver lining that comes with world fame. If you didn't take the shot, the scenario, you would lose everything that you know and love, be penniless for the rest of your life.
Choose wisely0 -
Jesus... I'm talking about someone photographing a child. Nothing more... no rare animals. There was a point to the fictional scenario and it was that they were photographing the child. :rolleyes:So? Again, another scenario for you. Say a very rare animal or one of their behaviour (the animal that is) was considered to be newsworthy and it just happened to be in the direction of the playground, would you take a photo of that incident or not because you were scared of being labelled as paedophile. Note, that this shot might lead to instant world fame as a photographer for capturing it, with all the silver lining that comes with world fame. If you didn't take the shot, the scenario, you would lose everything that you know and love, be penniless for the rest of your life.
Choose wisely0 -
Now you're telling porkies.Ok maybe you haven't been following the thread recently. The current discussion was about the statistics that show men are a much higher percentage of abusers than women are. TC's point was that it's usually a family member more than a stranger that abuses the children. I made up a scenario of 2 men taking photos but one is a stranger and one is a relative of the child and asked him who he'd be more wary of. It really has nothing to do with taking a photo, that was just the fictional scenario.
You and bwalsh have been defending the use of discrimination against men as a group because statistically men are a far larger risk (even though you have changed your line recently and now claim it should be on merit).
I pointed out that if you really wanted to use statistics, then you'd be better off targeting relatives, who as a group are statistically an even higher risk. I did not do this because I approve of such a system, but to point out how pointless this kind of profiling ultimately is, and have already said this, so please do not misrepresent what I have written.
Then you chose to pick a scenario whereby two men, a stranger and a relative, are taking photos of children in a playground, as if this somehow proves something. I chose to be more suspicious of the person (note not gender specific) who is the stranger as they have far less legitimate reason to be doing this - because this is my position, not some moronic profiling approach because it makes things nice and simple for people who don't think for themselves and are easily swayed by popular media without questioning it.
Indeed, the very fact that the stranger and not the relative (who is part of a higher risk group than unrelated men like the stranger) is more suspect, is yet another reason why using such bigoted generalities is, for lack of a better word, dumb.
There are practical advantages to profiling, but these are more often than not very limited, and come with very real consequences for those being profiled and, in the end, those we claim to be protecting using such methods.0 -
Jesus... I'm talking about someone photographing a child. Nothing more... no rare animals. There was a point to the fictional scenario and it was that they were photographing the child. :rolleyes:
Well, I am talking about the scenario of you saying that if a stranger was photographing with a zoom length, how would you know if that person had take a photo of a child? Are they going to show you?0 -
Ok maybe you haven't been following the thread recently. The current discussion was about the statistics that show men are a much higher percentage of abusers than women are. TC's point was that it's usually a family member more than a stranger that abuses the children. I made up a scenario of 2 men taking photos but one is a stranger and one is a relative of the child and asked him who he'd be more wary of. It really has nothing to do with taking a photo, that was just the fictional scenario.
Well not quite, the thread was originally as the name suggests Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models? about the very real fear of being branded a paedophile if a male goes anywhere near children, even if a child is in obvious distress (i.e. lost in a supermarket etc).
The current very off topic discussion (imo) has nothing to do with the original premise and has been primarily driven by two posters of which you are one.
Have to agreed with The Corinthian I think who said it a few pages back, this thread which I believe was an interesting discussion on a very real problem has been ruined.
Although having said that, at least both of you, quite unintentionally I would think, have highlighted exactly why these fears exist and are propagated.
Personally I would have preferred if you wish to hammer home page after page justifications for discrimination based on one group of statistics that ignore any other group that you did it in a separate thread as this one, at least in relation to it's original intent is dead.0 -
No, you're probably just taking it up wrong again.The Corinthian wrote: »Now you're telling porkies.
Not defending, just pointing out the reasoning behind it. I'm not changing my line, I'd always judge every scenario differently as would anyone else. Like a clown at a circus offering your child sweets vs a man in a long coat on the side of a road offering your child sweets... you get it yet?The Corinthian wrote: »You and bwalsh have been defending the use of discrimination against men as a group because statistically men are a far larger risk (even though you have changed your line recently and now claim it should be on merit).
But little has been mentioned of relatives until you mentioned it. People generally don't profile their relatives because they like to think they know them better. Even if that is a false hope in some cases.The Corinthian wrote: »I pointed out that if you really wanted to use statistics, then you'd be better off targeting relatives, who as a group are statistically an even higher risk. I did not do this because I approve of such a system, but to point out how pointless this kind of profiling ultimately is, and have already said this, so please do not misrepresent what I have written.
Point proven though, people don't profile relatives as easy.The Corinthian wrote: »Then you chose to pick a scenario whereby two men, a stranger and a relative, are taking photos of children in a playground, as if this somehow proves something. I chose to be more suspicious of the person (note not gender specific) who is the stranger as they have far less legitimate reason to be doing this - because this is my position, not some moronic profiling approach because it makes things nice and simple for people who don't think for themselves and are easily swayed by popular media without questioning it.
So you're a bigot now too because even though you know the relative is higher risk you'd be more wary of the stranger... right? I mean that's the kind of answer you've given to most of my points, you know turn it around and twist the words so you can point a finger.The Corinthian wrote: »Indeed, the very fact that the stranger and not the relative (who is part of a higher risk group than unrelated men like the stranger) is more suspect, is yet another reason why using such bigoted generalities is, for lack of a better word, dumb.0 -
And the answer was yes, clearly it is. If there was to be no discussion then it could have been closed after a few posts.Well not quite, the thread was originally as the name suggests Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models? about the very real fear of being branded a paedophile if a male goes anywhere near children, even if a child is in obvious distress (i.e. lost in a supermarket etc).
The reasons behind the claim have nothing to do with the premise of the thread?The current very off topic discussion (imo) has nothing to do with the original premise and has been primarily driven by two posters of which you are one.
Have to agreed with The Corinthian I think who said it a few pages back, this thread which I believe was an interesting discussion on a very real problem has been ruined.
I said at the start why these fears were in place. The discussion escalated from there. Mainly because I've been branded a bigot which is absurd to say the least.Although having said that, at least both of you, quite unintentionally I would think, have highlighted exactly why these fears exist and are propagated.
So what would you prefer? Did you forget to finish that sentence?... there doesn't seem to be a point to it. And what other statistics am I ignoring? And what other thread are you talking about now?Personally I would have preferred if you wish to hammer home page after page justifications for discrimination based on one group of statistics that ignore any other group that you did it in a separate thread as this one, at least in relation to it's original intent is dead.0 -
Just because the majority of abusers are male does not mean the majority of males are abusers.
Vigilance, increased wariness, on-your-toes are just PC terms for discrimination.
Men can't even question the status quo in public for fear of people questioning their motives.
Saying that increased caution and paranoia is "no bad thing" is clearly wrong. The lack of male role models is a bad thing.
A balance needs to be found and the current arrangement is not balanced.0 -
Nobody said that and I don't think anyone thinks like that either.Just because the majority of abusers are male does not mean the majority of males are abusers.
Only if you make them.Vigilance, increased wariness, on-your-toes are just PC terms for discrimination.
So instead of not doing it for fear of questioning, why not just do it and if someone questions then just set them straight! Non action is as bad as anything else. I'd even say it indirectly supports the discrimination.Men can't even question the status quo in public for fear of people questioning their motives.
And like I just said, if you don't act yourself it's not going to change is it?Saying that increased caution and paranoia is "no bad thing" is clearly wrong. The lack of male role models is a bad thing.
A balance needs to be found and the current arrangement is not balanced.0 -
Advertisement
-
I said at the start why these fears were in place. The discussion escalated from there. Mainly because I've been branded a bigot which is absurd to say the least.
I think bigot might be a bit harsh but from reading your posts here you do seem to if not practise at least agree with active discrimination based on gender, however only in relation to specific instances determined by...well that's a bit unclear to be honest. From what I can make out the predominant factor is if it's a bloke it's ok to discriminate in certain unspecified conditions, better safe than sorry after all.
So what would you prefer? Did you forget to finish that sentence?... there doesn't seem to be a point to it. And what other statistics am I ignoring? And what other thread are you talking about now?
No I did not forget, I think if you read it again you will see there is a full stop preceded by a valid sentence. Not normally given to sarcasm but like for like. If you were not being sarcastic apologies, no I did not forget.
In answer to your question regarding statistics. If you continually bring up statistics (which from what I've read are more of the "everyone knows" variety) be at least prepared to counter rather than wilfully ignore other groups of statistics, i.e. 40% of boys abused are by females etc because it does not fit in with your argument.
Your last question regarding what other thread? If you read my last post again you will see the answer.0
Advertisement