Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

HellFireClub

iptba wrote: »

It's an interesting point. However, I have problems with suggestions that sex crimes are the only ones that get light sentences in Ireland. And also I have problems with the hierarchy of crimes: losing one's life should clearly be said to be the worst thing that can happen to you in my opinion.

Well, the strange thing is, we don't worry about leaving a child and an adult male unsupervised, and the outcome of that would be that the child would end up murdered. We generally don't worry too much about being the subject of a murder in this country, because apart from gangland type murders, where it could be argued that people know and ought to be fully aware of what they are getting involved with there in those cases, classical type murder is not commonplace in Ireland.

But we have gotten to a place where it is now considered to be for all intents and purposes, unacceptable social practice for a male adult to be left in the company of a child unsupervised. I personally think that when you step back for a second and see the sheer enormity of that statement, I ask myself what on earth has happened in our society?

I fully accept that there is a hierarchy of crime and that murder resides at the very top of that hierarchy. But that doesn't mean that I think it is anywhere near acceptable that convicted sex offenders are being handed down suspended sentences, as if the punishment of being publicly outed as a sex offender is punishment enough, no it isn't, certainly not when the situation is at it presently is, where I, as an normal adult male, feel that I may be the subject of a certain unspoken suspicion if I were to be left in the company of a child unsupervised!

mfceiling

Very interesting thread.

As a father of 3 girls it is interesting to see how you are perceived around other peoples kids.

My middle girl is friendly with a little one and sometimes I even think did I overstep the mark by tussling her hair outside the school and asking her how she is.....I know her father well and he will do it to my girls and I take nothing from it.

The worst one I've had was at a christening and the lady who was christening her twins also had a 3 year old running around the chapel. She fell and burst her lip. I was asked would I drive her up the road to the granny's house. Putting her in the car seat and then having to get the seat buckle on the car seat from between her legs nearly gave me heart failure - her aunt stood there saying "she'll be alright"....I stood there thinking this isn't a problem with my girls but someone else's daughter...different story.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

We the people make policies all the time. I am not saying I agree with all of them or all of their detail. I never pushed for a ban. I simply said that I would be in acceptance of rules and policies brought in to protect children.

The problem with that approach is that if a rule or policy was brought into effect to take children away from their families to be raised by the State, because statistically the vast majority of abuse is carried out by both male and female, parent and sibling, family members, to protect children, then you should also support it.

And if not, you really have to explain why you support one measure to protect children and not another - why is it acceptable to effectively cut children off from all male contact, to protect them, but not family, even though statistically (I didn't make this up either) this approach would be the more effective.

And if the only real difference is based upon gender, then ultimately you are adopting a misadirst philosophy - plain and simple.

Overall, my objection to your position is that it lacks any real thought. You appear to be simply blindly accepting prejudices without questioning them or their wider consequences. And worse than that you seem averse or even incapable of any critical examination of your position.

And what is wrong with me and you having a polite and respectful discussion about it without labelling each other as ignorant or lacking intelligence etc? I am not saying my view is correct, but why the need to be condescending and belittling. It sorta' ruins a discussion.

So does a complete inability to consider the wider implications, even when they are all but spelt out to you, practically with the aid of finger puppets.

For example, on the subject of employing protections for children that would have them removed from their families, you completely missed the point that this was raised to illustrate how simplistic your arguments were, and instead reacted with confusion as to why we would even suggest this. Then you presumed that we were only talking about male family members (given you have a fixation on male-only threats to children).

I was actually shocked that you didn't comprehend what others were trying to point out to you - you're actually the only person on this thread who didn't.

Added to this lack of comprehension, you display repeatedly a fatalistic 'that's how things are' and 'our leaders know what's best' viewpoint, which also simplistically boils all democracy down to tyranny by the majority, even though democracy doesn't actually work this way (which has also been pointed out to you repeatedly to no avail).

In the end, it's frustrating as it feels like trying to explain something to Jillian from Family Guy (you'll note she echoes one of your own arguments in that clip), and inevitably people are going to lose patience.

walshb

But my point was never anthing to do with removing males from a family. My point was that when working with children they will come under closer scrutiny. Why? Well, that is down to the world we live in, and the fact that they are the ones who mainly commit sexual crimes against children.

I also never said that males should have their contact with children cut. I am not sure where this is coming from.

One can read back all my posts. I would like to see where in any of them did I imply/state or suggest that males should be banned or removed from contact with children.

I did say that males do pose (or at least they have posed) a greater sexual risk to children. That is backed up by official figures.

BTW, the thread is specifically relating to males and their contact and interaction with children. Taking this into account I don't believe I have any fixation on males and their interaction and contact with children. The thread is clear!

walshb

The Corinthian wrote: »

Added to this lack of comprehension, you display repeatedly a fatalistic 'that's how things are' and 'our leaders know what's best' viewpoint, which also simplistically boils all democracy down to tyranny by the majority, even though democracy doesn't actually work this way (which has also been pointed out to you repeatedly to no avail).
.

But it's not only leaders. It's people, groups, experts, researchers, social workers ete etc. Usually in any democracy these kind of rules and regulations are brought in after detailed discussions amongst a host of different people and departments and organisations. Yes, I do have a certain amount of trust.
In essence it is us the people who makes the changes.

Piliger

HellFireClub wrote: »

How can it be dragging the thread off topic, when the reason people are so wary about leaving a child in the unsupervised company of a male adult, and when even the male adult is wary about being left in the unsupervised company of a child, must to some extent, be down to the light handedness that is going on when it comes to how our society punishes convicted child abusers?

I do not see, and have never seen, any evidence that this is the case. People have no awareness or care about sentences except when a case hits the headlines. It plays no role in their irrational prejudice on this topic whatsoever.

I do think it is an absolutely horrendous place we have come to as an apparently highly evolved society, when these kind of suspicions are clearly very very close to the surface, when a male adult is left in the unsupervised company of a child, because, "you just never know".

It is horrendous.

And what makes it worse, if that is possible, is that there is NO ONE fighting this cause, or even speaking up about it. This is why this discussion here is so important and why it is so important to get this discussed here and elsewhere. Also why it is so important to open men's eyes to the need for Mens Rights to become a valid topic of conversation and campaigning.

It must be central to the problem, that these kind of suspicions can only exist, when people logically worry that someone who is a sex offender, is (1) on the wrong side of the prison wall, and/or (2) is an undetected sex offender, as in that he/she isn't on the radar as someone who is a threat to children.

Again I see no connection to this issue. If every sex offender were given a life sentence (REAL life) this prejudice would not be any better ... in fact it would probably be worse.

It's about education, and neglected prejudice. It is about a complete inability among a sizeable portion of the population to grasp that these abuses are 90% inside the family and an incredibly rare occurrence.

And in my view it is also fed in to by the campaign by feminist groups among other things to marginalise men and tell society that it is women who matter to families, women who matter to children, women who are valued and not men; that men are only sperm donors and child support payers.

The Corinthian

walshb wrote: »

But my point was never anthing to do with removing males from a family.

Christ on a stick! No one other than you have said this - remember I ever pointed out that "you presumed that we were only talking about male family members". What is it that you're just not understanding??!!

Look, as simply as possible:

• You hold a position based upon a certain logic.
• We point out how this logic can be used to justify extreme ends.
• You either have to accept the extreme ends, come up with new logic to justify your position without such flaws or admit your position is fundamentally flawed.

I feel like I'm trying to explain long division to a chimp.

walshb wrote: »

But it's not only leaders. It's people, groups, experts, researchers, social workers ete etc. Usually in any democracy these kind of rules and regulations are brought in after detailed discussions amongst a host of different people and departments and organisations. Yes, I do have a certain amount of trust.

First time you've bothered to mention anyone other than our leaders. But do you actually know who these people, groups, experts, researchers, social workers are? Have you ever read any of their reports? From what I can see, you're completely clueless.

In essence it is us the people who makes the changes.

As Thomas Jefferson once said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" - fail there and it stops being 'us the people' deciding anything.

Your position is an abdication of that democratic responsibility, a preference founded on ignorance and blind obedience, in turn, born out of sloth.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

Christ on a stick!

Jeeeez you are patient

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

HellFireClub wrote:

It must be central to the problem, that these kind of suspicions can only exist, when people logically worry that someone who is a sex offender, is (1) on the wrong side of the prison wall, and/or (2) is an undetected sex offender, as in that he/she isn't on the radar as someone who is a threat to children.

Again I see no connection to this issue. If every sex offender were given a life sentence (REAL life) this prejudice would not be any better ... in fact it would probably be worse.

It's about education, and neglected prejudice. It is about a complete inability among a sizeable portion of the population to grasp that these abuses are 90% inside the family and an incredibly rare occurrence.

And in my view it is also fed in to by the campaign by feminist groups among other things to marginalise men and tell society that it is women who matter to families, women who matter to children, women who are valued and not men; that men are only sperm donors and child support payers.

It is also very unlikely every offender would be caught - police don't generally catch all offenders.

Also, it might make people more on the look out if people were told it was the very worst crime.

Also, it would be a terrible thing to have hanging over people - it wouldn't necessarily make ordinary men more relaxed as the sentence would be even worse.

Piliger

I have been reading around on this topic and looking at how it has been dealt with elsewhere. I have come across a couple of excellent articles that are worth reading and propagating imho.

An excellent piece by MICHAEL FUMENTO as far back as 1994 but still fresh in 2012.
"Why does the media's version of events sometimes differ so much from reality? The answer lies less in reportorial bias than in the abandonment of reason and a failure fully to investigate."

http://fumento.com/crime/mediacritic.html And keep in mind that there are 300 million people in the USA.

Another piece by Madonna King in Australia in 2010.
"WHEN did we start to dislike men so much that we're happy for them not to be part of our children's lives? That's the question posed by the latest ridiculous assault on the integrity of all males."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/spike/columnists/pedophile-panic-is-marking-our-men-as-bad/story-e6frerhf-1225943189592

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

I have been reading around on this topic and looking at how it has been dealt with elsewhere. I have come across a couple of excellent articles that are worth reading and propagating imho.

An excellent piece by MICHAEL FUMENTO as far back as 1994 but still fresh in 2012.
"Why does the media's version of events sometimes differ so much from reality? The answer lies less in reportorial bias than in the abandonment of reason and a failure fully to investigate."

http://fumento.com/crime/mediacritic.html And keep in mind that there are 300 million people in the USA.

Another piece by Madonna King in Australia in 2010.
"WHEN did we start to dislike men so much that we're happy for them not to be part of our children's lives? That's the question posed by the latest ridiculous assault on the integrity of all males."

http://www.couriermail.com.au/spike/columnists/pedophile-panic-is-marking-our-men-as-bad/story-e6frerhf-1225943189592

Thanks.
I don't feel I want to put simply put a like under it as I have a few problems with some of the details of the first one (nothing to do with child protection) but I think it makes a good point.

Also, I wish the figures were tied down a bit more with this example:

PERCEPTION:
In the early 1980s, a wave of child kidnappings swept the country. Parents locked up their kids, fingerprinted them, and in extreme cases fitted them with tracking devices. USA Today, in one of a series of emotionally wrenching editorials, informed its readers that "strangers steal as many as 20,000 children a year." Opinion writers asked, "How could it happen?" Newsweek, in a March 19, 1984 article, wrote of "6,000 to 50,000 missing children [who are] presumed victims of ’stranger abduction,’ a crime of predatory cruelty usually committed by pedophiles, pornographers, black-market baby peddlers or childless psychotics bidding desperately for parenthood." U.S. News & World Report wrote in 1983 of 20,000 to 50,000 children "snatched by strangers — most never to be seen again."

REALITY:
It is an understatement to say these number were inflated. USA Today in a later editorial admitted "the media magnified the story. Broadcast, articles, and editorials, including some in USA Today, reported the scary statistics... Now we know those numbers were probably wrong. There aren’t that many children kidnapped by strangers. The National Center for Missing Children says there are between 4,000 and 20,000. Child Find in New York has lowered its annual estimate to 600. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says that in 1984 there were only 67."

I don't think there are many attempts in Ireland anyway to be that worried about child snatchings in particular.
I think a lot of them in the US have been put down to separated parents which isn't really the same thing in my mind.

I have read studies that people are not very good at assessing the relative risks of things.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

Thanks.
I don't feel I want to put simply put a like under it as I have a few problems with some of the details of the first one (nothing to do with child protection) but I think it makes a good point.

I agree. But the point is the wider one being made, and the fact that this trend is going on all over the world. But the reporting is fragmentary and the awareness by men is still not reaching any kind of tipping point where they feel something needs to be done.
Because the reporting is so poor, and the media is so dominated by the feminist agenda, men who do not directly suffer any negative experience still think that it is all someone else's problem.

smash

Just thinking about this recently and I wonder how many men would hire a 16 yr old boy to babysit their children?

Piliger

smash wrote: »

Just thinking about this recently and I wonder how many men would hire a 16 yr old boy to babysit their children?

As it happens I did it when my son was about 4, several times, and it was terrific. A completely different kind of atmosphere and my son loved it too. But I was made well aware of the 'unusualness' of my actions by my neighbours who made their 'surprise' very clear over a period of a few months.

A couple of girls in my estate were cleaning up by baby sitting whereas the boys earned ZERO. Another area where I don't see Feminists out marching for equality !!

When I used the boy, who was about 14 or 15, I got a LOT of brownie points fro all the lads in the estate and it then made it easier for my son when he got older and mixed with their younger brothers.

People attitude to this is totally outrageous and deeply prejudice. They basically believe that teenage boys are significantly likely to abuse their children - and THAT is a message that comes through loud and clear to those boys, believe me I KNOW. An early stab in the back for teenage boys that tells them they are all 'suspect'.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

it then made it easier for my son when he got older and mixed with their younger brothers.

If you had a daughter do you think you would have still hired him? Genuine question.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

If you had a daughter do you think you would have still hired him? Genuine question.

Absolutely 100% yes. Why not ?

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

Also, I wish the figures were tied down a bit more with this example:

That went over my head ... doesn't that example include a plethora of stats ?

Vince135792003

I am the only male primary school teacher in my school.

There is a rota for teachers at lunch time who when needed help children who have been hurt on yard e.g. 99% of the time slightly marked hands. On my first day I was informed that for my "own safety" I would not be put on the rota. There are lots of other examples too but it all feeds into the paranoia.

iptba

Piliger wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Also, I wish the figures were tied down a bit more with this example:

That went over my head ... doesn't that example include a plethora of stats ?

It's just in the reality section, there are still very big numbers as well as quite small ones so it's unclear the scale of overstating it. If there really is no evidence for the National Center for Missing Children's stats, it might have been preferable if they weren't mentioned. But perhaps there is something in their figures - it really isn't clear.

PERCEPTION:
In the early 1980s, a wave of child kidnappings swept the country. Parents locked up their kids, fingerprinted them, and in extreme cases fitted them with tracking devices. USA Today, in one of a series of emotionally wrenching editorials, informed its readers that "strangers steal as many as 20,000 children a year." Opinion writers asked, "How could it happen?" Newsweek, in a March 19, 1984 article, wrote of "6,000 to 50,000 missing children [who are] presumed victims of ’stranger abduction,’ a crime of predatory cruelty usually committed by pedophiles, pornographers, black-market baby peddlers or childless psychotics bidding desperately for parenthood." U.S. News & World Report wrote in 1983 of 20,000 to 50,000 children "snatched by strangers — most never to be seen again."

REALITY:
It is an understatement to say these number were inflated. USA Today in a later editorial admitted "the media magnified the story. Broadcast, articles, and editorials, including some in USA Today, reported the scary statistics... Now we know those numbers were probably wrong. There aren’t that many children kidnapped by strangers. The National Center for Missing Children says there are between 4,000 and 20,000. Child Find in New York has lowered its annual estimate to 600. The Federal Bureau of Investigation says that in 1984 there were only 67."

LeeHoffmann

People attitude to this is totally outrageous and deeply prejudice. They basically believe that teenage boys are significantly likely to abuse their children - and THAT is a message that comes through loud and clear to those boys, believe me I KNOW. An early stab in the back for teenage boys that tells them they are all 'suspect'.

I´ve never encountered this attitude, though you obviously have. My brother, male friends and male cousins all regularly babysit young children. I´ve never heard of anyone saying it´s more dangerous to have a male babysitter than a female one. I´d be interested whether other men on here have encountered a similar attitude? Would there be more suspicion of an adult male babysitting than of a teenage boy?

Woodward

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I´ve never encountered this attitude, though you obviously have. My brother, male friends and male cousins all regularly babysit young children. I´ve never heard of anyone saying it´s more dangerous to have a male babysitter than a female one. I´d be interested whether other men on here have encountered a similar attitude? Would there be more suspicion of an adult male babysitting than of a teenage boy?

I have encountered it but only when it was guys who werent related to the child

Piliger

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

I´ve never encountered this attitude, though you obviously have. My brother, male friends and male cousins all regularly babysit young children. I´ve never heard of anyone saying it´s more dangerous to have a male babysitter than a female one. I´d be interested whether other men on here have encountered a similar attitude? Would there be more suspicion of an adult male babysitting than of a teenage boy?

I would like to hear too. This is a topic that arose many times as my son grew up and no one I ever met had ever had or heard of teenage boys being engaged as baby sitters. I always remember 'that smile' on people's face when they learned that I was engaging a guy from my estate. The smile that says ... wow you are a brave guy ... insane ... but brave. I always felt it was a disturbing statement against boys and when I would say so .. they would agree with me 100%. But the smile remained, showing that their rational side said one thing .. but the pressure of society was saying another.
Anyone else ?

smash

Piliger wrote: »

Absolutely 100% yes. Why not ?

I was just asking and I know you say yes, but then again your situation is completely different as you didn't have a daughter. To me it seems that people assign a higher level of danger with boys babysitting girls than they do with boys babysitting boys.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I was just asking and I know you say yes, but then again your situation is completely different as you didn't have a daughter.

The old "I don't like your answer, so I'm going to dismiss it" argument.

To me it seems that people assign a higher level of danger with boys babysitting girls than they do with boys babysitting boys.

Simplest solution, seeing as we're using 'feelings' to determine policy, is to lock up daughters until they hit marrying age, then arrange a husband to take over protecting her, no?

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

The old "I don't like your answer, so I'm going to dismiss it" argument.

I didn't dismiss it, just pointed out that it's a different scenario.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Simplest solution, seeing as we're using 'feelings' to determine policy, is to lock up daughters until they hit marrying age, then arrange a husband to take over protecting her, no?

I honestly have no idea what you're on about now. I presume it was an attempt at humor of some sort though.

But since you're talking about feelings to determine policy, how else would a parent act when determining a babysitter?

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I honestly have no idea what you're on about now. I presume it was an attempt at humor of some sort though.

If it was humour, it was black humour. You clearly stated that "people assign a higher level of danger with boys babysitting girls than they do with boys babysitting boys", as if populist viewpoints were somehow factual and not, in reality, based on emotion and prejudice.

Indeed, if the babysitter is an abuser, they will generally be indifferent to the gender of the victim - boys will be no more safe with such a babysitter than a girl.

But since you're talking about feelings to determine policy, how else would a parent act when determining a babysitter?

One should not be using feelings to begin with, because the natural extension of that is to lock up your children and otherwise wrap them in cotton. Determining whether the babysitter is trustworthy or not, should be based not on their gender, but on their past work and assessment of their character. What do other families that have employed them say, for example?

Floppybits

I have to say that the fear of paedophilia is preventing positive male role models. I use to manage a football team from under 13 to under 16. In the years that I was managing the team I never entered the changing room when the lads were getting changed, myself or one of the other men helping with the team would busy ourselves either filling water bottles or putting the flags out on the pitch, the only time we would only enter the changing room was after the pre-match warm up to name the team, give the team talk and to give out the jerseys. At the end of a match we wouldn't enter the changing room until all the lads had either changed or left and then we would collect the jerseys.

Like one of the posters near the start of this thread said when he told his mother that he was coaching a younger and she said be careful, it reminded me of a time when I telling my girlfriend that I gave the lads a lift from the pitch and dropped them off at the shopping centre and she said be very careful and make sure you dont put yourself in a position where you could be accused of anything. I was a bit taken aback when she said it as it never crossed my mind but she explained that what if one of the lads took a dislike to you and decided to make an allegation against you and you had no way to refute the accusation, she said your reputation and life would be ruined. This really woke me up to how easy it is easy for a man's life to be ruined by a false allegation. Since then I have not managed a team and if I do manage a team again it will be an adult team.

I also seen a neighbour get falsely accused of beating a kid, the kid was about 12 and him and his mates had been tormenting the people in the apartment block across the road from us by racing by the apartment door entrance on their bikes because there was a bit of a ramp there. I had seen the guy telling the kids to clear off as what they were doing could be dangerous as anyone could walk out the door of the apartment and could have been hit by these kids on the bike. One day the guy from the apartment came home and there were about 10 or 12 kids all flying by the front door, so he told them to clear off and they did. After this I had come home from work and was in the car in the driveway of my house when 2 of the lads came back to do their jump, as they were flying by the door of the apartment the door of the apartment opened the neighbour was about to step when one of the lads flew by on the bike and nearly hit him. Anyway he got a fright and made a run at the lad but stopped short and gave him a bollicking, the kids said they were sorry and then cycled off as they got a bit away they started shouting back at the neighbour calling him all sorts of names. Anyway I got out of the car and said to the neighbour, jaysus you had a lucky escape there and he said yeah lucky it was him and not one of the other neighbours who was heavily pregnant. So about 2 hours later I get a knock on my door and there are 2 guards there, so I am shocked and ask them whats wrong. They proceeded to tell me that an accusation has been made against the neighbour in the apartment block and the neighbour had told the guards that I had witnessed the whole thing and they could ask me what happened. So I told the guards everything I saw. They said that what I told them was completely different to what the kid had said. After I told the guards what I saw, I never heard anything, about 2 weeks later I was parking the car and I seen the guy again and I asked him what happened, it turned out the loud mouth kid, went home told the mother what he was doing and said the neighbour had beat him up smacking him in the head and punching him in the stomach, the mother then drove straight to the police station and made the complaint against the neighbour. The neighbour said he was so lucky that I had actually seen what happened as he said the guards were ready to charge him. As it turned out he made the kid and his parents go down to the police station to apologise to him for what he had done. This just highlighted to me how easy it is for accusations to made against men and how innocent situations can get blown out of control.

Based on what happened to that guy I have decided that I wont be coaching any under age football teams and instead to telling kids who are being nuisance out the house to clear off I am going to ring the guards instead. It is just not worth putting yourself in a situation that could see you accused of something.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

If it was humour, it was black humour. You clearly stated that "people assign a higher level of danger with boys babysitting girls than they do with boys babysitting boys", as if populist viewpoints were somehow factual and not, in reality, based on emotion and prejudice.

I'd say it's mostly because nearly every case of pedophilia involves a male abuser. And in the case of teenage boys, they're becoming sexually active. Not that it should really matter because there's a difference between molesting a child and being sexually active but I guess because of the media and statistics of male vs female abusers it's something that people think of. Which is wrong but it happens.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Determining whether the babysitter is trustworthy or not, should be based not on their gender, but on their past work and assessment of their character. What do other families that have employed them say, for example?

And here is the issue, boys generally don't get the babysitting jobs to begin with. I'd say it's mostly because of the reasons mentioned above.

Jimmy Iovine

Floppybits wrote: »

...

From my point of view a lot of the blame in that story, if not all of it, lies with that child's mother. I can understand that parents will generally believe what their children tell them, but if they take a step back and assess the situation before acting then a lot of unnecessary hassle can be avoided.

Some children have a tendency to bend the truth when they themselves are in the wrong. I know I did on plenty of occasions when I was younger. It's just a way of getting themselves out of trouble, and they don't know any better.

Parents should realise this and investigate a little further. It can be difficult to do so if your child has just said that an older man hit him, but I think it's pretty basic to delve into yourself before running off to the Gardaí.

One or two questions and you'd be able to see right through a childs 'story'. Then everyone can go back to being happy. It's when people don't ask those questions that the problems arise.

Don't let that incident put you off coaching a team. It's an isolated incident. If you're going to be working again with them then you should always have someone else there with you. If, and I don't think it will happen, you're accused of something then they are your backup to say that you did nothing.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I'd say it's mostly because nearly every case of pedophilia involves a male abuser. And in the case of teenage boys, they're becoming sexually active. Not that it should really matter because there's a difference between molesting a child and being sexually active but I guess because of the media and statistics of male vs female abusers it's something that people think of. Which is wrong but it happens.

Which is based up media-driven hysteria rather than rational concerns, including abuse perpetrated by females - if you read through the thread on experiences of rape on tLL, you'll find numerous examples of this having occurred. Ultimately it creates a false sense of security.

And here is the issue, boys generally don't get the babysitting jobs to begin with. I'd say it's mostly because of the reasons mentioned above.

And unless parents look beyond the hysteria and assess potential babysitters (or anyone else engaged with the care of their children) rationally, then this trend will continue until no male will be able and/or willing to do so. If a childhood with no contact with any males is what parents want, then this is what they'll get.