Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

hardCopy

smash wrote: »

Nobody said that and I don't think anyone thinks like that either.

But you act as if men are a high risk group, statistically they are not.

smash wrote: »

Only if you make them.

If you treat people negatively because of one arbitrary thing that they have no control over, that's discrimination.

smash wrote: »

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.

I'd encourage any man who wants to help a local sports club to go ahead. How does one set people straight? You can't prove a negative.

smash wrote: »

And like I just said, if you don't act yourself it's not going to change is it?

And how does one change that if parents don't want male coaches, babysitters, teachers etc?

nucker

Smash, as I as I concerned, if anyone commits any sexual crimes towards children, and both genders have a part of being involved in the crime, it is well documented that women have been known for whatever reasons to keep quiet while their partners have been sexually abusing kids and actually condoned their behaviour, don't you think then that both genders are as guilty or high risk to children being abused? Or do you look upon men as being high risk because they have a certain genitalia?

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

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.

We're talking about situations involving men where someone might get the wrong idea and why they get the wrong idea. The main reason is because of media coverage of abuse cases where it seems to be constantly men who are the abusers. Subconsciously this WILL affect how people think about others in certain circumstances.

For what it's worth, situations mentioned here are the likes of coaches - Nearly every coach in both my sons clubs are male and I have never once thought any of them to be paedophiles. babysitters - Male babysitters I've used have been my dad, my wife's dad and my brother. Apart from that it's our mothers or 1 girl that lives in our estate.

DamoKen wrote: »

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.

So 40% of boys abused are by females... this still makes males the higher percentage. This statistic doesn't discount the original statement.

hardCopy wrote: »

But you act as if men are a high risk group, statistically they are not.

Higher risk does not equal high risk.

hardCopy wrote: »

If you treat people negatively because of one arbitrary thing that they have no control over, that's discrimination.

But it's not a case of treating everyone negatively, it's circumstantial.

hardCopy wrote: »

I'd encourage any man who wants to help a local sports club to go ahead. How does one set people straight? You can't prove a negative.

If someone questions your motives, you tell then they're wrong. It's easy.

hardCopy wrote: »

And how does one change that if parents don't want male coaches, babysitters, teachers etc?

Then they don't hire them or they remove their children from the club. Let them away with it, there are multiples more who think differently than idiots like that.

smash

nucker wrote: »

Smash, as I as I concerned, if anyone commits any sexual crimes towards children, and both genders have a part of being involved in the crime, it is well documented that women have been known for whatever reasons to keep quiet while their partners have been sexually abusing kids and actually condoned their behaviour, don't you think then that both genders are as guilty or high risk to children being abused? Or do you look upon men as being high risk because they have a certain genitalia?

We're not talking about dual partner crimes here, and even still it doesn't change the stats much. And stop mudying the waters with these kid of statements. What you're talking about is an abuser whose wife/gf is afraid of them. Therefor they have more than likely been abused by them too.

hardCopy

smash wrote: »

Higher risk does not equal high risk.

Higher risk than who? Women, unochs? What level of risk justifies discrimination?

smash wrote: »

But it's not a case of treating everyone negatively, it's circumstantial.

Not everyone, just all males.

smash wrote: »

If someone questions your motives, you tell then they're wrong. It's easy.

If it was easy we wouldn't be having this conversation.

smash wrote: »

Then they don't hire them or they remove their children from the club. Let them away with it, there are multiples more who think differently than idiots like that.

See above.

walshb

hardCopy wrote: »

Just because the majority of abusers are male does not mean the majority of males are abusers.
.

And nobody has ever remotely claimed this to be true. The majority of males are not paedophiles. The majority of paedophioles are males. That is what is being siad here.

DamoKen

walshb wrote: »

And nobody has ever remotely claimed this to be true. The majority of males are not paedophiles. The majority of paedophioles are males. That is what is being siad here.

And therefore as you have previously stated it is ok to discriminate against ALL males because of this, hence illustrating exactly what prevents many males from engaging in any activity be it sport, education etc that involves children not their own.

walshb

DamoKen wrote: »

And therefore as you have previously stated it is ok to discriminate against ALL males because of this, hence illustrating exactly what prevents many males from engaging in any activity be it sport, education etc that involves children not their own.

Well, like I said, in certain circumstances I do not have an issue with gender discrimination. This is one scenario.

BTW, how does it prevent them engaging or applying for roles with children? It's not a blanket ban on them being allowed to work with children. Just maybe more scrutinisation and vetting before being cleared to work.

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

hence illustrating exactly what prevents many males from engaging in any activity be it sport, education etc that involves children not their own.

Even thinking of this statement. If you're not willing to participate then someone else will. I don't really think it prevents positive role models in society and in fact you could consider it the opposite, that it encourages people who actually have the courage to say they will do it despite any supposed hysteria. These are the people you want your children to look up to being honest, not someone whose afraid.

hardCopy

walshb wrote: »

And nobody has ever remotely claimed this to be true. The majority of males are not paedophiles. The majority of paedophioles are males. That is what is being siad here.

Then why treat all men as a risk?

DamoKen

smash wrote: »

So 40% of boys abused are by females... this still makes males the higher percentage. This statistic doesn't discount the original statement.

I only included this statistic as you asked what other groups of statistics I was referring to. And once again you seem to maintain your original position. Would you prefer if it were an even 50-50 split? At least that way you could judge all with suspicion and there would be no discrimination.

I think you are not seeing the point. From the above you imply that because the statistics state 20% more abusers are male rather than female it is ok to discriminate against the larger group and ignore the smaller.

The whole point of mentioning that statistic however was to illustrate just how patently ridiculous it is to base judgements on statistics alone and use them to pre-judge an entire gender/race/religion/<insert group here>. It's not acceptable with race, it's not acceptable with religion, but apparently from the last number of pages it seems to be perfectly acceptable with one particular gender.

One would hope good judgement and common sense would play a far larger part than "statistical evidence", however the very existence of the ORIGINAL theme of the thread clearly states this is not the case.

walshb

hardCopy wrote: »

Then why treat all men as a risk?

Higher risk. Higher than women. No different to men being a higher risk when insurance companies are making up policies.

The Corinthian

DamoKen wrote: »

And therefore as you have previously stated it is ok to discriminate against ALL males because of this, hence illustrating exactly what prevents many males from engaging in any activity be it sport, education etc that involves children not their own.

This is unfortunately the position of both smash and bwalsh, although the latter was far more open with admitting it, we had to wait until this point before smash just about tipped his hand:

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.

Since then we've been going around in circles, for example I pointed out how a frightenly high percentage of abusers of boys are female and smash's response has been to repeatedly dismiss this and consider it irrelevant - after all, if the majority of abusers are men, we need only concentrate on them.

And this is is one of the problems with using such a simplistic approach to children's safety, the potential for other sources of abuse is ignored because everyone has apparently decided that the only danger out there is men.

Then, of course, there is the question of whether it is desirable to have children effectively cocooned from any male contact (except perhaps supervised male relatives) until adulthood. And finally, there is the question of the human rights of men, which while an unpopular topic, does bare considering.

But ultimately, you're right; the thread has long since been spoiled by these two posters who, one less subtly than the other, decided that this prejudice or hysteria, is ultimately justified through some simplistic and flawed grasp of mathematics, despite the consequence or dangers of such an approach and that we should all simply just accept this.

And with that I think I might bow out, at least unless the thread improves, and leave you with this topical video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw

DamoKen

walshb wrote: »

Well, like I said, in certain circumstances I do not have an issue with gender discrimination. This is one scenario.

BTW, how does it prevent them engaging or applying for roles with children? It's not a blanket ban on them being allowed to work with children. Just maybe more scrutinisation and vetting before being cleared to work.

Sorry but this is just absurd. Again you freely admit you practise discrimination with no qualms and on the next line you ask how does it prevent them engaging in activities where you (and many others of like mind) will maybe not as openly as you, discriminate against them.

I think you have answered your own question.

And no need to be obtuse, I never suggested there is a ban. However in a culture where discrimination based on gender alone is seen as acceptable, for all intensive purposes the outcome is the same. Sure you will still get men participating but I think statistics such as the catastropic drop in male primary school teachers speak for themselves.

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

I think you are not seeing the point. From the above you imply that because the statistics state 20% more abusers are male rather than female it is ok to discriminate against the larger group and ignore the smaller.

But who's ignoring statistics now? I think you'll find it's you. We're talking about the abuse of children not just boys and I think you'll find if you combine the abuse of boys and girls you get a much higher percentage gap again. If you keep drilling down you could get to crazy stats but they mean nothing in relation to the original statement that the majority of paedophiles are men. And that under certain circumstances the stats increase again. It's like arguing that the ocean isn't mostly water because there is a percentage of other liquids in it.

And still you're arguing about the statistic. And even though we've gone head to head I still only see myself and TC are the only 2 to suggest how to make it better in society.

DamoKen

The Corinthian wrote: »

And with that I think I might bow out, at least unless the thread improves

Agreed

walshb

DamoKen wrote: »

Sorry but this is just absurd. Again you freely admit you practise discrimination with no qualms and on the next line you ask how does it prevent them engaging in activities where you (and many others of like mind) will maybe not as openly as you, discriminate against them.

I think you have answered your own question.

And no need to be obtuse, I never suggested there is a ban. However in a culture where discrimination based on gender alone is seen as acceptable, for all intensive purposes the outcome is the same. Sure you will still get men participating but I think statistics such as the catastropic drop in male primary school teachers speak for themselves.

You used the word prevent. I queried this. I don't know, but I would have asumed that this word was being used to imply "stop."

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

Sure you will still get men participating but I think statistics such as the catastropic drop in male primary school teachers speak for themselves.

And you think this has nothing to do with the facts that there is a big pay gap between now and years gone by or that the IT industry which only took off not so long ago is mostly populated by males because it's what they find interesting or more lucrative?

There are a hell of a lot more factors than a fear of being branded a pedo and you'd be crazy to think otherwise.

Zulu

Thread. Ruined.

nucker

Can't understand why people would want to advocate the need to support people who spread untrue rumours about another person when they can't clearly prove anyone is guilty of paedophilia, it makes a sad world if people go to that depth of nastiness

It is just as bad as crimes against children

Piliger

Zulu wrote: »

Thread. Ruined.

All it takes is one, or two, who are intent on disrupting. I believe Corinthian, sorry Corinthian, has been to willing too engage what have been clearly disruptive diversions.

Men in general are living our everyday lives fearful of getting in to what should be considered ordinary decent innocent situations, for fear of catastrophically damaging accusations that are being made by irrational, unthinking and stupid people who, unfortunately are all too common all around us.

Something needs t be done. Men need to highlight our experiences, demonstrate how completely unacceptable they are and communicate that to others.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

Men in general are living our everyday lives fearful of getting in to what should be considered ordinary decent innocent situations, for fear of catastrophically damaging accusations that are being made by irrational, unthinking and stupid people who, unfortunately are all too common all around us.

No they're not. I can safely say I don't personally know any men that live their lives with this fear and I know a lot of men. A good chunk of them are active with sports teams etc too

Piliger wrote: »

Something needs t be done. Men need to highlight our experiences, demonstrate how completely unacceptable they are and communicate that to others.

Yet, you haven't suggested what can be done. I have... now give some suggestions.

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

And with that I think I might bow out, at least unless the thread improves, and leave you with this topical video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCywGhHQMEw

Thanks for that.
One bit that struck me was the quoting of the statistic that those who were abused were more likely to abuse, so they were killed also.

DamoKen

walshb wrote: »

You used the word prevent. I queried this. I don't know, but I would have asumed that this word was being used to imply "stop."

Second last post. Read the thread title, big hint there!!! And what you're at it, how about reading up until where you decided to wade it, to anyone with any grasp of the meaning of the thread it would be quite clear what I meant, no assumptions were necessary. Unfortunately that is all you and one other have done time and again, make assumptions, and very ignorant ones at that. Ironically enough the very definition of discrimination.

DamoKen

smash wrote: »

And you think this has nothing to do with the facts that there is a big pay gap between now and years gone by or that the IT industry which only took off not so long ago is mostly populated by males because it's what they find interesting or more lucrative?

There are a hell of a lot more factors than a fear of being branded a pedo and you'd be crazy to think otherwise.

Last post

Sorry I should have used "" instead of italics when I said statistics. Maybe it wasn't as clear as I would have liked but I was being ironic and attempting to show that you can use statistics any way you like and arrive at whatever conclusion you want. I thought my position regarding reliance on statistics alone would have been clear from my previous post

DamoKen wrote:

The whole point of mentioning that statistic however was to illustrate just how patently ridiculous it is to base judgements on statistics alone and use them to pre-judge an entire gender/race/religion/<insert group here>.

While the original subject of this thread could indeed play a part in the drop in male participation in teaching (which has even been mentioned by those with direct experience in this thread) it as you correctly point out is not the only factor at play.

However although in this instance you recognise we cannot rely on statistics alone to come to a conclusion, for some bizarre reason you choose to completely ignore their fallibility when it doesn't fit with your acceptance of discrimination based on that alone.

So that's me out of here. No problem debating with anyone, but this has been going in circles for the last 10 pages with people who are deaf to any voice but their own.

smash

DamoKen wrote: »

However although in this instance you recognise we cannot rely on statistics alone to come to a conclusion, for some bizarre reason you choose to completely ignore their fallibility when it doesn't fit with your acceptance of discrimination based on that alone.

The main point was that the percentage of male abusers is much greater than female. That's a fact. You can say that in cases of abuse of boys that 40% are female and that's a fact, but it still doesn't dismiss the first statistic, it just slightly dilutes it for one instance. However your "statistic" is not real because there is no proof to say males wont enter teaching because of fear of being branded a pedo, and as I pointed out there are other factors to take on board, which you have after I mentioned them.

So back to the original premise of the thread. Is this 'fear' preventing male role models? Not really actually because as I said already : If you wont partake in an activity involving children, others will and they're actually stronger people than you are for it.

There is two sides to the 'fear' here:
The pubic side which is driven by media coverage of peadophile activity where it just so happens that most abusers are male.

The personal side which is what most of the people here seem to have. Is that driven by the media coverage too? If so, then you are indirectly supporting it along with the public side. If not, what is driving it?

I've suggested how people could get involved to help diminish the public side of it, but do people have what it takes on the personal side to do it?

Zulu

So in short:

• it's acceptable to prejudge men as pedos (as the statistics dictate men to be higher risk)
• men aren't discouraged from being role models for children as a consequence of this prejudice (contrary to posts from men on this very thread)

Smash you are talking grade A shite.

I'm outta here.

smash

Zulu wrote: »

it's acceptable to prejudge men as pedos (as the statistics dictate men to be higher risk)

Fine, if that's what you want to take from it... :rolleyes:

Zulu wrote: »

men aren't discouraged from being role models for children as a consequence of this prejudice (contrary to posts from men on this very thread)

Like I said, I don't know any men discouraged from it. And I asked a question "The personal side which is what most of the people here seem to have. Is that driven by the media coverage too? If so, then you are indirectly supporting it along with the public side. If not, what is driving it?"

You fancy answering it or are you going to ignore this one like you have all the others?

Zulu wrote: »

Smash you are talking grade A shite.

Nice. Personal attack because of a different opinion. I notice how you've added zero really to this thread bar being argumentative.

Zulu wrote: »

I'm outta here.

bye bye

nucker

smash wrote: »

Fine, if that's what you want to take from it... :rolleyes:


Like I said, I don't know any men discouraged from it. And I asked a question "The personal side which is what most of the people here seem to have. Is that driven by the media coverage too? If so, then you are indirectly supporting it along with the public side. If not, what is driving it?"

You fancy answering it or are you going to ignore this one like you have all the others?


Nice. Personal attack because of a different opinion. I notice how you've added zero really to this thread bar being argumentative.


bye bye

But you haven't added anything apart from statistics, they are really meaningless. So stating and only believing in statistics you want to easily condemn men because it's statistically higher and only because of that reason?

smash

nucker wrote: »

But you haven't added anything apart from statistics, they are really meaningless. So stating and only believing in statistics you want to easily condemn men because it's statistically higher and only because of that reason?

Go back and have a read before typing. I don't "want to easily condemn men" :rolleyes: And I was asked for ways to combat the issue, which I gave. One of only 2 people who have actually given any I might add. so I've added more than most to be fair.