Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

iptba

I thought this piece from the UK was interesting (from 2008)

Vetting blunders label 12,000 innocent people as paedophiles, violent thugs and thieves

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1085208/Vetting-blunders-label-12-000-innocent-people-paedophiles-violent-thugs-thieves.html

iptba

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahhh, the old macho take it on the chin 'cos real men do, line - a strategy that has successfully convinced generations of men to do phenomenally dumb things for no good reason other than ego.

At what point do you stop taking it on the chin then? When you're taking it in the ass?

The catalog of anti-male shaming tactics:
http://faithandsociety.wordpress.com/2006/05/27/the-catalog-of-anti-male-shaming-tactics/

iptba

My nephew said to me, a while back, something like how come you never lose your temper. I'm glad to be able to show him there are different ways of behaving. It's also enjoyable spending some time with kids, and is probably often good for people [to get in touch with your inner child, reflect back on your own childhood, as preparation before becoming a father, or whatever] so it's a pity if men lose out on opportunities.

jaffacakesyum

I never knew this was such a big issue for men as I've never heard of people, even just jokingly, suggest that men in teaching or coaching roles are paedophiles. I know a few male primary school teachers...and I actually know very few female coaches in sport so I don't think this issue as a whole is deterring men from coaching roles anyway, because by the very nature of it, sport is always going to attract more males.

I am NOT undermining the fact that this clearly is an issue for men, based on this thread.

However, I would suggest that if you are worried about taking up a coaching role with kids or going into teaching etc. and you're getting comments from people - it says a lot about the company you are keeping. Just because there is a stupid attitude amongst the minority, doesn't mean you should all shy away from being around kids

Piliger

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Does everything come back to the feminist movement for you?

Only things that come back to the feminist movement.

Piliger

Woodward wrote: »

It becomes your problem once they lodge a complaint. Innocent until proven guilty rarely applies to sex cases and even if you are proved innocent your name is dragged through the mud

Except you never get proven innocent. And most men's experienced are not legal. They are social, where your guilt is determined by rumour and innuendo and is unchallengeable.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Ahhh, the old macho take it on the chin 'cos real men do, line - a strategy that has successfully convinced generations of men to do phenomenally dumb things for no good reason other than ego.

At what point do you stop taking it on the chin then? When you're taking it in the ass?

I believe he has already explored that strategy and hence his rather 'anal' viewpoint .....

Emeraldy Pebbles

Piliger wrote: »

Only things that come back to the feminist movement.

Well, this issue doesn't. Not primarily anyway.

Gloomtastic!

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I never knew this was such a big issue for men as I've never heard of people, even just jokingly, suggest that men in teaching or coaching roles are paedophiles. I know a few male primary school teachers...and I actually know very few female coaches in sport so I don't think this issue as a whole is deterring men from coaching roles anyway, because by the very nature of it, sport is always going to attract more males.

I am NOT undermining the fact that this clearly is an issue for men, based on this thread.

However, I would suggest that if you are worried about taking up a coaching role with kids or going into teaching etc. and you're getting comments from people - it says a lot about the company you are keeping. Just because there is a stupid attitude amongst the minority, doesn't mean you should all shy away from being around kids

You'd think wouldn't you, like most normal people. But the Gentlemens Club are above all that seemingly. God help us all.....

iptba

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I never knew this was such a big issue for men as I've never heard of people, even just jokingly, suggest that men in teaching or coaching roles are paedophiles. I know a few male primary school teachers...and I actually know very few female coaches in sport so I don't think this issue as a whole is deterring men from coaching roles anyway, because by the very nature of it, sport is always going to attract more males.

Just on a point of logic: just because there are, or you know, relatively few female coaches, doesn't mean some men, or even a significant number, haven't been deterred. However, I don't have any empirical data on it.

Also, sports coaching is also only one form of contact with children.

jaffacakesyum

iptba wrote: »

Just on a point of logic: just because there are, or you know, relatively few female coaches, doesn't mean some men, or even a significant number, haven't been deterred. However, I don't have any empirical data on it.

Also, sports coaching is also only one form of contact with children.

True, and I was just using it as an example. Again, like you, I don't have any data on it. I'd imagine in Ireland anyway that virtually all coaching positions are filled or filled quickly (due to recession and when the coaching is a non-paid position, I'd imagine it's still filled quickly with people who are looking for experience). I don't have any data for this but I think most people would agree that the majority of coaches are probably male. Therefore, while some men may be deterred from taking these positions out of fear for being branded a paedophile, it clearly isn't affecting a statistically significant proportion of men.

AGAIN this is all based on speculation as no one has any data on this.

And I know sports coaching is only one form of contact with children. I'm just using it as an example.

iptba

I went to an all boys school run by a religious order. Some of the religious used to take quite an interest in the pupils - they had no children of their own so could be like mini-father figures. I felt I was helped by their interest in me and how I was getting on. Sometimes I was in one of their rooms.

Of course, such closeness to religious orders did cause problems in Ireland. It is probably better that some of these practices have stopped. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a loss even in these cases.

Piliger

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

True, and I was just using it as an example. Again, like you, I don't have any data on it. I'd imagine in Ireland anyway that virtually all coaching positions are filled or filled quickly (due to recession and when the coaching is a non-paid position, I'd imagine it's still filled quickly with people who are looking for experience). I don't have any data for this but I think most people would agree that the majority of coaches are probably male. Therefore, while some men may be deterred from taking these positions out of fear for being branded a paedophile, it clearly isn't affecting a statistically significant proportion of men.

AGAIN this is all based on speculation as no one has any data on this.

And I know sports coaching is only one form of contact with children. I'm just using it as an example.

So you have no data, and and again you have no data ... and you imagine ... but then your conclusion is 'clear', yet based on speculation...... somewhat confusing.

With respect, seeing as so many men have direct experience of these kinds of ghastly incidents I suggest your 'imagining's don't shed much light on the matter.

Piliger

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

You'd think wouldn't you, like most normal people. But the Gentlemens Club are above all that seemingly. God help us all.....

Would that we in tGC could all be as wonderful and manly and strong and resilient as you.

jaffacakesyum

Piliger wrote: »

So you have no data, and and again you have no data ... and you imagine ... but then your conclusion is 'clear', yet based on speculation...... somewhat confusing.

With respect, seeing as so many men have direct experience of these kinds of ghastly incidents I suggest your 'imagining's don't shed much light on the matter.

Do you think the majority of sports coaching positions are held by men or not?

I believe they are. I have no statistics but I would be very surprised if anyone thinks otherwise.

The fact that so many coaching positions are held by men shows that it IS ok for men to hold such figures around children. The whole world isn't out to paint you as a paedophile

Galwayguy35

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Do you think the majority of sports coaching positions are held by men or not?

I believe they are. I have no statistics but I would be very surprised if anyone thinks otherwise.

The fact that so many coaching positions are held by men shows that it IS ok for men to hold such figures around children. The whole world isn't out to paint you as a paedophile

Let's leave the coaching example to one side, as for most men this isn't something they will have to deal with.

For most men it would be day to day situations where they would be alone with a kid.

For examle about 10 years ago the neighbours kid used to come over to my house because I had SKY and she used to like to watch the cartoons in the sitting room, her parents knew she was coming over and I can honestly say a fear of such a situation never entered my head.

Fast forward to the present and not in a million years would I have a kid come over to the house on their own.

The Corinthian

Piliger wrote: »

Only things that come back to the feminist movement.

TBH, I'll have to side with Emeraldy on this one; this issue is not due to Feminism, but largely a creation of the media. This can be demonstrated easily, first by pointing out that it is principally an Anglophone hysteria, present largely in English-speaking countries that possess a commercially aggressive tabloid press. This is further underlined by how this hysteria has been attacked over the years by satirists, notably in British television (e.g. Monkey Dust and Brass Eye), that all targeted tabloid journalism as the cause.

Feminism's involvement has been at worst reactionary, in that even here you will frequently find Feminists jumping in to dismiss any topic that may threaten the orthodox view that only women are discriminated against, however in itself such behaviour not seeking to promote this particular prejudice against men, only seeking to silence that any prejudices against men exist.

So while I'm no fan of Feminism, and have repeatedly made it clear that I consider the movement today to be morally bankrupt and terminally malignant, however on this point, all evidence points to it not going back to Feminism.

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

You'd think wouldn't you, like most normal people. But the Gentlemens Club are above all that seemingly. God help us all.....

If you're incapable of arguing your position beyond vague clichés at this stage, should that not be a sign that perhaps your position is, for lack of a better term, wrong?

Let's recap on what you wrote; your initial post was to dismiss the issue and instead argue that as long as a man 'follows the rules', there will be no issue.

At that stage, I simply thought you'd just jumped into the thread without bothering to read it first, and when it would be pointed out to you that the evidence clearly contradicted your view, you might see some sense and climb down from your earlier stance.

Instead, you've dug your heels in, and having had what little argument you had pulled from beneath you, have resorted to chauvinistic clichés, about 'growing a pair' or otherwise taking the whole thing on the chin.

Now, I am perfectly willing to concede that for men to refuse contact with unrelated children may not be the best response to this issue, but presently this 'strike'-like approach does appear to me to be the best way to highlight the problem so that it may be addressed, until someone can suggest a better way.

However, devolving to a blind chauvinistic and patriarchal stance is utterly bizarre to me. It ignores the fact that we no longer live in the same World when such values actually meant anything, and so means that this adherence to orthodox gender roles has become little more than the masculine equivalent of turkeys voting for Christmas.

Do you not question the rational of such values in modern society? If so, how do you justify them? If not, is it out of pride, ego or simply sloth? Serious query.

Davidth88

Really interesting thread , but I think this is not a totally recent phenomenon. I clearly remember my father talking about an instance back in the 80's

He was walking to work under an underpass , and a girl of about 9 was running towards him , ahead of her mother . In front of she slipped , his first instinct was to stop to comfort the girl , but feared he would be accused of something terrible , so walked past the girl.

It upset him greatly.

Feeona

Blisterman wrote: »

What are people's thoughts?

I work with children, and my boyfriend works with children. As teachers, the both of us need to be aware of what we say and what we do around children ie if a child needs changing in infants for example two adults need to be in the room, reason being that the child might go home and tell his/her parents 'Teacher took my clothes off today' without explaining the important point that he/she had wet himself! Saying that, my boyfriend is very careful about touching the children in any way, whereas I wouldn't be so careful. He does however take teams, and has never been deterred from taking them. He had to bring a group of boys to Croke Park one day for a half time match. He and another man went into the changing room with the boys, while I and another lady stayed outside, and I was glad to see that common sense prevailed in that situation. Hardly fair for those young boys to be getting changed with two women in the changing room!

I work with under 11's girls football also. I and three men work with this team (great community spirit where I am!), and these guys are absolutely brilliant. They show such commitment and energy, they have a great knowledge of the sport and are great with the girls.

I think it would be a great pity if we're facing into a future where men would be deterred from working with children, but all it takes is one parent (as I know too well from working in schools) to stop a well meaning individual from giving his time to working or being around children. I personally think that some parents are really too quick to take what their children are saying as gospel, without asking some well directed questions to clear matters up (going by my own experiences). Added to that the constant news from around the world about children going missing etc. Sometimes I think we are not yet emotionally equipped to deal with the barrage of information that advances in technology have allowed us to access, resulting in needless hysteria when a man approaches a child

Gloomtastic!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you not question the rational of such values in modern society? If so, how do you justify them? If not, is it out of pride, ego or simply sloth? Serious query.

I've been a stay-at-home Dad for the last nine years. As I've said previously in this thread, for the last five years, I've worked part-time with kids and I also volunteer with kids. I also child mind professionally if asked.

There are three mothers I know who will not let their kids come over to play with my kids because I'm a bloke. I just don't ask them over any more. It says more about them, and their attitudes to their children, than it does about me.

I also know dozens of mothers who are more than happy to let their kids come to ours.

My kids are allowed to play outside on the street with the neighbouring kids. Kids love to play with others kids. They don't need parental supervision, the older ones naturally look after the younger ones, the younger ones naturally follow the lead from the older ones. They also don't need toys, they have their imaginations and will happily play together all day if allowed. They make the rules, they make their own friendships, no parents needed.

Kids love coming to play at our house and I'll be damned if three small-minded bigots are going to stop that.

So I would say, not only do I question modern societies rules, but actively go out of my way to show they are wrong! It is with pride - my kids are easily the best behaved kids I know. It is my ego - I am easily the best parent I know and also sloth because I couldn't be bothered worrying what might happen if I was ever accused of inappropriate behaviour with any kids.

There is still enough good in this world that allows people to trust each other, regardless of gender, to look after their children without harming them in any way. Long may it continue.

The Corinthian

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Kids love coming to play at our house and I'll be damned if three small-minded bigots are going to stop that.

Yet they exist, as do cases of false accusation, something that you put down to paranoia at the start. Stoically turning the other cheek is not going to change that - it won't dispel those three small-minded bigots that you're some sort of kiddie fiddler in the making, or keep them silent from expressing this the moment that you have a negative experience (presuming they're not already slandering you).

Yet your attitude is to passively ignore the problem or even pretend it's not really a problem.

So I would say, not only do I question modern societies rules, but actively go out of my way to show they are wrong! It is with pride - my kids are easily the best behaved kids I know. It is my ego - I am easily the best parent I know and also sloth because I couldn't be bothered worrying what might happen if I was ever accused of inappropriate behaviour with any kids.

Not really; the moment you start suggesting that people should "grow a pair" and stoically accept this situation as somehow normal and acceptable, you are actually falling into the old chauvinistic pattern of 'taking it on the chin like a man'. Can you not see this?

There is still enough good in this world that allows people to trust each other, regardless of gender, to look after their children without harming them in any way. Long may it continue.

It won't continue that long, I'm afraid. There are fewer such people than there used to be and in time there will be fewer still, if every man has the same attitude as you to this issue. The problem is not getting better, after all, and unless something is done to highlight it, it will simply get worse.

Presently, men retreating from contact with unrelated children is one way to do this, because sooner or later people in general will (and are already beginning to) ask where all the men have gone. This may not be the best approach to force the debate (it has here for example), but as I said, it's the best I've heard to date.

Otherwise, in another few years, the situation will be such that even if men do want to work or help with children, it will be impossible for us to do so in practical terms - instead, only women will be able or allowed to.

As a final irony, what we may end up seeing is a scenario whereby a female teacher in her twenties or thirties will end up committing statutory rape on a male minor of, say, 13-years of age.

Except it won't actually be rape, because Irish law tells us that you need a penis for this, so it'll just be the far less serious charge of molestation. Not that this will make much of a difference, of course, because if the push to abolish custodial sentences against women is adopted, the teacher in question will never serve a day, even if convicted.

For added schadenfreude she may get pregnant by the minor too, leaving him a father by 14, required to pay maintenance once he hits 17 or 18 (his parents may be liable up to then) and she will naturally get custody of the new child.

All because people like you will "be damned" if you even acknowledge that there is a problem in the first place.

LegacyUser

I am female, but I definitely think it's tough on men, this sort of situation. One friend in particular is very fond of children, but it depresses him that he can't express this the way that I would - AKA, even something as small as smiling at a stranger's toddler.

However, despite this he is also adament that he would be very wary of strange men around his child. Particularly alone. He knows that he is trustworthy but can't convey it to strangers and cannot know for certain which strangers are trustworthy.

I wonder do many of you guys feel this way? Erring on the side of caution knowing that it will affect all men - including yourselves - just because of a few scumbags.

cyrusdvirus

i have no problem playing with my friends kids... Feck it, 2 of them are my god kids!

HOWEVER, I work for a retail company, in a Head Office role that occasionally requires me to go to stores, especially when there is a re-launch or store opening. In those situations, despite the fact that i am wearing a suit, wearing a name badge and am clearly identified as someone in a position of authority, I would be very apprehensive about approaching a distressed child in the store. So apprehensive in fact, that I would (and have) followed the child at a discreet distance waiting to find a female member of staff or management and ask them to approach the child.

It may sound like paranoia, it may BE paranoia, but it's also cautious, and a course of action that i will continue to follow.

Piliger

Gloomtastic! wrote: »

Kids love coming to play at our house and I'll be damned if three small-minded bigots are going to stop that.

There is a lot to be admired about your attitude, but it doesn't actually achieve anything except your own satisfaction.

The level of risk of a false accusation or a false rumour or innuendo being spread is significant. The fallout from such a thing happening is enormous even it wre never a legal one.

I suggest that your attitude of denial, and defiance, doesn't actually do anything to tackle men's predicament.

So I would say, not only do I question modern societies rules, but actively go out of my way to show they are wrong!

Nice as it would be were that to be true, I disagree.

It is with pride - my kids are easily the best behaved kids I know. It is my ego - I am easily the best parent I know and also sloth because I couldn't be bothered worrying what might happen if I was ever accused of inappropriate behaviour with any kids.

Wilful denial may comfort you, but the fall out of a false accusation would change your view very very fast. I know how it feels, and a huge number of other men do also. I sincerely hope you never have to experience it.

There is still enough good in this world that allows people to trust each other, regardless of gender, to look after their children without harming them in any way. Long may it continue.

I agree 100%. But unfortunately there is also a significant element in society that does NOT trust men and that element carry an astonishingly powerful weapon of accusation that cannot be countered with even the highest, purest, form of innocence.

Piliger

cyrusdvirus wrote: »

i have no problem playing with my friends kids... Feck it, 2 of them are my god kids!

HOWEVER, I work for a retail company, in a Head Office role that occasionally requires me to go to stores, especially when there is a re-launch or store opening. In those situations, despite the fact that i am wearing a suit, wearing a name badge and am clearly identified as someone in a position of authority, I would be very apprehensive about approaching a distressed child in the store. So apprehensive in fact, that I would (and have) followed the child at a discreet distance waiting to find a female member of staff or management and ask them to approach the child.

It may sound like paranoia, it may BE paranoia, but it's also cautious, and a course of action that i will continue to follow.

What those in denial do not realise is that this reluctance, a reluctance borne out of good honest common sense, has enormous implications for the safety of young children who accompany their parents to public places such as parks, Fairs, Shopping Centres, etc etc.

In years gone by there was a collective behaviour among adults to ensure children around us are safe. When i was in my 20's I was in a shopping centre on two occasions when I encountered a crying, lost child.

Back then I immediately comforted the child and took them to a central point where the parent could be found.

Now I would never ever ever do that. Not in a million years. No matter what I might fear might happen. And I know for a fact that many men I know share that position. Extrapolate that and you have a sizeable proportion of the male population.

What does that mean for the safety of our children ? I suggest to those in denial that it has far more widespread, and more dangerous implications than any real danger posed by pedophiles or those who might take a child for other reasons. It may be easy to say ah well there will be women around ... that may be the case in come situations, but not many others.

Another bizarre incident happened to me when I was about 30 - 35. I was standing at the bank on the corner of the Deansgrange crossroads after coming out of he bank. As I stood there the craziest thing unfolded in front of me. A small child of about 3 was waddling from the corned to my left out into the road between the cars...... and was almost at one of the islands. Cars were passing and some could not even see it because it was so small. I looked around and no one was beside me .... I ran out with my hands in the air urging cars to stop and I grabbed the child and brought it back to the bank pathway. Looking around I couldn't see ANY mother or parent... people around were hardly reacting because of the speed everything unfolded in. I walked in to the shop closes to the spot and a woman immediately shouted at me ... screamed at me .... about holding her child. Thankfully an elderly lady behind me lunged forward, literally between us and berated the woman for allowing her child to wander into the street where I retrieved her. Thank goodness she had seen the whole thing! The whole situation was defused in a second and i went home, completely unthanked of course.

I hesitate to imagine how I would react now. I believe I would hesitate. I hate to think I would, but I would. And I am sure I am not the only one. All it would take is a hesitation for a tragedy to occur. But at least that tragedy would not be mine.

The fallout from the whipping up of the dangers of pedophiles by the media combined with the campaigns to denigrate and demean men, and our importance to children and the family by the feminist movement has many serious fallouts that go way beyond just the absence of men from children's lives, a sad and damaging thing on it's own.

who_me

It has to be said - there's a huge amount of social pressure on parents too. If you leave our kids stay out until 9 but everyone else on the street has their kids in by 7, then you're a bad parent. But if everyone lets their kids out until 9, then it's fine...

If someone suggests a certain teacher/coach/friend is 'a bit dodgy', then you'll be a bad parent if you're not extra careful with that individual. It doesn't matter if the accusation had no basis whatsoever, there's enormous pressure to NEVER take ANY chances where your children are involved. Even if you don't believe the accusation whatsoever, you can't be seen to be not taking it seriously.

IMO, parents are incredibly, massively judgemental of others where children are involved. Especially of other parents.

The media contributes massively to this, but it doesn't cause it. The media are just a megaphone which amplifies the fears/social pressures that are already there.

Piliger

who_me wrote: »

The media contributes massively to this, but it doesn't cause it. The media are just a megaphone which amplifies the fears/social pressures that are already there.

I don't fully agree. The Media amplify it out of all proportion for the purposes of generating readers, viewers and income. They are there to make money and very successful at it too.

The modern media feeds on the extremes. They don't do it for our health and the health of our society or culture. They intentionally distort proportion and proportionality for their own ends.

The Corinthian

who_me wrote: »

If someone suggests a certain teacher/coach/friend is 'a bit dodgy', then you'll be a bad parent if you're not extra careful with that individual.

Then speak up - get them to justify rationally why that person is 'a bit dodgy'. If they have a genuine concern, fair enough, but as per my earlier post, if they do not and it is clear that it is based on nothing but prejudice, tear them a new one.

The media contributes massively to this, but it doesn't cause it. The media are just a megaphone which amplifies the fears/social pressures that are already there.

Cause what though? Concern for the safety of one's child is perfectly normal, but it is difficult to deny that it has been the media that has amplified it from a normal concern to hysteria, not existing fears and social pressures. Where do you think these fears and social pressures came from in only the last few decades and largely only in Anglophone nations?

As an addendum, a publisher I know, who owns a number of magazine titles, had or has a parenting magazine title amongst them. He told me once that if he put something like "5 things that could save your child's life" on issue the cover, sales for that issue increase by 65%.

Fear is very profitable.

Feeona

who_me wrote: »

If someone suggests a certain teacher/coach/friend is 'a bit dodgy', then you'll be a bad parent if you're not extra careful with that individual. It doesn't matter if the accusation had no basis whatsoever, there's enormous pressure to NEVER take ANY chances where your children are involved. Even if you don't believe the accusation whatsoever, you can't be seen to be not taking it seriously.

It's scary to think that some people will go to such extremes to protect their children. A man's character and upstanding within a community can easily be ruined with talk like that! If I were you, I'd ask those people where they get their information from. It's quite possible that you or a member of your family could be the target of such spiteful, damaging gossip some day!

Piliger

Feeona wrote: »

It's scary to think that some people will go to such extremes to protect their children. A man's character and upstanding within a community can easily be ruined with talk like that! If I were you, I'd ask those people where they get their information from. It's quite possible that you or a member of your family could be the target of such spiteful, damaging gossip some day!

People have always, and will always, behave like this - especially now that we have smaller families and our society is so child-centric.

The shame of it is that people are so passive in swallowing everything they read in the Media, with no ability or education on how to 'interpret' what they read and see.

The Media is not interested in proportionality or balance. We the people have to develop an ability or be educated to do so for ourselves.

SKY News is a 24/7 stream of missing children, child abuse, children kidnapped etc. etc. etc. Every time one child is missing we have blanket coverage for a week.

I am not necessarily saying we should not cover this - but there is NO ONE reminding people that this is one of MILLIONS of children out playing, walking to and from school etc etc every hour of every day. It is a TINY incidence.

It is left to us to be able to step back and realise that the risk is infinitesimal. Unfortunately there is a sizeable portion of our community that seem completely incapable of doing so. I wish it were a minority but I regret to say that I believe it is the majority.

We need to start teaching some kind of Media course to every child in school. How to 'read' the Media; how to 'assess' news; how to assign proportionality to what we see and read every day.