Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

Floppybits

Jimmy Iovine 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.

Jimmy, I agree with you 100% it was the parents fault for involving the guards in something that if they took a second to think about it would have avoided all the stress and hassle it caused. However there are a lot of parents out there that don't take that step back and rush head long into things.
I was just using to highlight who easy it is for kids to make accusations against someone and how this is making it men like myself question whether to get involved in things like coaching under age football teams or other activities.

It is the same for the teacher who posted earlier in the thread about a kid making a complaint about him because he gave him detention or whatever, when you hear these stories you do have to ask yourself is it worth all the hassle to get involved and for a lot of men these days its not worth it.

I remember when I was younger I was walking home from a match and my neighbour passed me in his car and he stopped and offered me a lift home which I gratefully took, and now I ask myself if I was driving home and seen a neighbours kid walking home would I stop and offer them a life? The answer is probably no.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Have you considered that maybe there's more to it like the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible?

Pawwed Rig

smash wrote: »

Have you considered that maybe there's more to it like the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible?

Irrelevant as you will find a greater acceptance of a 16 year old girl as a babysitter rather than an older boy. So I don't think age is a factor here

smash

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Irrelevant as you will find a greater acceptance of a 16 year old girl as a babysitter rather than an older boy. So I don't think age is a factor here

I didn't say age, I said maturity. Jesus when I was 18 my 16 year old female cousins probably acted more mature than I did.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

Have you considered that maybe there's more to it like the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible?

Other than the rebuttal by Pawwed Rig, all you are doing is, at best, justifying a blanket prejudice against males using statistics - because girls may mature faster on average, ergo all boys are immature. The height of the fallacy of this reasoning is whereby because males are more likely to abuse on average, ergo all males are effectively abusers and all females are not.

Simply judging an individual on the basis of gender averages, other than flying in the face of all gender equality legislation and principles, is a poor means to judge the merit of that individual. Beyond the tendency to ignore the minority dangers it also has the long-term effect of disenfranchising an entire gender from contact with children and the detrimental social effects that this would bring.

Emotive hysteria cannot be defended rationally, simple as that.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

Other than the rebuttal by Pawwed Rig, all you are doing is, at best, justifying a blanket prejudice against males using statistics - because girls may mature faster on average, ergo all boys are immature. The height of the fallacy of this reasoning is whereby because males are more likely to abuse on average, ergo all males are effectively abusers and all females are not.

I'm not justifying anything, I'm asking for opinions on theories like maturity, media hype etc.

Pawwed Rig

smash wrote: »

I didn't say age, I said maturity. Jesus when I was 18 my 16 year old female cousins probably acted more mature than I did.

Ok I present the same point then inserting maturity for age.

Irrelevant as you will find a greater acceptance of a less mature girl as a babysitter rather than a mature boy. So I don't think maturity is a factor here

Piliger

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

It seems to me that boys don't get a look in whether it's a boy or a girl so there is no difference.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

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

Feelings ? Are you nuts or something ? I would want to know FACTS about any babysitter. I would want someone I know, someone who is local, someone I can ask around about, someone I can ask other parents s/he has baby sat for .... etc etc etc. At the end of it may come a personal and emotional response to them, but it is FACTS that I am interested in.

LeeHoffmann

Feelings ? Are you nuts or something ? I would want to know FACTS about any babysitter. I would want someone I know, someone who is local, someone I can ask around about, someone I can ask other parents s/he has baby sat for .... etc etc etc. At the end of it may come a personal and emotional response to them, but it is FACTS that I am interested in.

good luck with that. If somebody´s a child abuser, not many people are going to know about. And if somebody tells you xyz is a child molester, you have to choose whether to believe it or not. Unless you were there at the time of an alleged incident, there is no fact of the matter. Erring on the side of caution and trusting your gut is probably the best way to stay safe/ensure your children´s safety.

Piliger

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 the VERY POINT we are discussing and seemed to be going over your head.

Girls are becoming sexually active as teens too ! And your earlier point about differentiating between girl children and boy children is now irrelevant because of the very point you make above, which is that boys don't get the jobs anyway !

You talk about statistics but you chose only ONE, that it is males far more than females that abuse. But you ignore the statistic that abuse is incredibly rare and even more rare by anyone outside the family. So if parents used ACTUAL statistics they would realise that their irrational fear of boy baby sitters is ridiculous.

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.

Which is the very points being discussed.

Piliger

Floppybits wrote: »

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.

You are 100% right. It's not worth risking the rest of you life being destroyed.

Piliger

The Corinthian wrote: »

If a childhood with no contact with any males is what parents want, then this is what they'll get.

And as someone above said ... THIS is exactly what is happening in our society.

NO male involvement in primary school, dwindling male involvement in secondary school. NO opportunity to receive male role model close mentoring because of the risk of being caught alone with male teachers/coaches.

It is hardly surprising that so many young men these days show a complete inability to transition to becoming 'men' and remain irresponsible, petulant and delinquent until much later in life.

In years past, when I was growing up in the 60s and early 70s, young boys would gain and benefit enormously by watching grown men and how they behave in their close circle. They would also gain and benefit from brief but profound bits of advice from older men about life and growing up. They would gain and befit from having a man, other than their father, to confide in at moments of personal crisis as they grew up.

This has now been totally removed and denied to boys growing up. I believe it is already having a profound affect on boys.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

Have you considered that maybe there's more to it like the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible?

What utter nonsense ! We all know that this is broadly the case, but how does that change the situation one iota ???

It just means girls would be suitable from an earlier age and boys from a later age ..........

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I'm not justifying anything, I'm asking for opinions on theories like maturity, media hype etc.

Stating "the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible" is not asking for opinions, it's giving one. As for seeking other opinions, I pointed out that "because girls may mature faster on average, ergo all boys are immature" is a logical fallacy, something you have yet to even acknowledge.

Whether you're playing Devil's Advocate or actually hold these views, to date you've simply been putting forward justifications for the prejudices we've been discussing, so based upon the above, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you are really seeking opinions.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

Which is the VERY POINT we are discussing and seemed to be going over your head.

No it didn't, I've been popping in and out of the thread from the start so lose your attitude would you.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Stating "the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible" is not asking for opinions, it's giving one. As for seeking other opinions, I pointed out that "because girls may mature faster on average, ergo all boys are immature" is a logical fallacy, something you have yet to even acknowledge.

But I never said all boys are immature. You're putting words in my mouth.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Whether you're playing Devil's Advocate or actually hold these views, to date you've simply been putting forward justifications for the prejudices we've been discussing, so based upon the above, you'll forgive me if I don't believe you are really seeking opinions.

I have not justified anything, I've been asking questions.

I swear to got some of you lot are as bad as, if not worse than militant feminists. You'd swear I was here to disagree with the theme of the thread, when I'm not.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

But I never said all boys are immature. You're putting words in my mouth.

I'm not, that is precicely what you said - you even went so far as to underline how it's a 'fact': "the fact that mentally, girls mature faster than boys so they're a bit more responsible". That last bit isn't even suggesting some are, it's stating (as 'fact') that girls are more responsible.

These are the words you came out with - attempting to downplay them now is a bit disingenuous.

I have not justified anything, I've been asking questions.

What questions? From what I can see you've been putting forward opinions and if there are any questions they are rhetorical to this end.

I swear to got some of you lot are as bad as, if not worse than militant feminists. You'd swear I was here to disagree with the theme of the thread, when I'm not.

That's how you come across; you've consistently put forward nothing but positions that justify the present hysteria and none against, so unless you're playing Devil's Advocate (which I suggested you might well be) what conclusion should we reach?

But sure, calling your opponent a crazy militant makes for a better defence.

smash

The Corinthian wrote: »

That's how you come across; you've consistently put forward nothing but positions that justify the present hysteria and none against, so unless you're playing Devil's Advocate (which I suggested you might well be) what conclusion should we reach?

I asked who'd hire a male babysitter, then asked if they had a daughter would it change their mind, then said there's a perceived higher level of danger in hiring a male, then I explained why I think this perceived higher level of danger exists to see what other thought.

I really don't feel that my posts should have been met with a "you're with us or against us" type attitude.

They way I see it, there's a lot of hype caused by the media about paedophilia but it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet. The downside is that in nearly all cases the accused is male and it reflects bad as males on a whole. Even to the point I made earlier regarding the male photographer at the playground.

15 years ago if not more, Friends ran an episode where Ross and Rachel hired a male babysitter and Ross was freaking out, but got over it. Unfortunately since then there have been cases coming out of the woodwork on a near weekly basis so times haven't moved on. Most recent cases relate to the church, with male accusers who were supposed to be guardians of the children. unfortunate but true.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

No it didn't, I've been popping in and out of the thread from the start so lose your attitude would you.

Actually no I won't. My attitude is to respond to your comments as they deserve to be responded to, and do so accurately.

I swear to got some of you lot are as bad as, if not worse than militant feminists. You'd swear I was here to disagree with the theme of the thread, when I'm not.

Perhaps if you patronised us less and expressed yourself better we might dissolve some of your issues.

smash

Piliger wrote: »

Perhaps if you patronised us less and expressed yourself better we might dissolve some of your issues.

I suggest you learn to read better, as I don't have any issues and I've expressed myself just fine in my opinion.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

I asked who'd hire a male babysitter, then asked if they had a daughter would it change their mind, then said there's a perceived higher level of danger in hiring a male, then I explained why I think this perceived higher level of danger exists to see what other thought.

I really don't feel that my posts should have been met with a "you're with us or against us" type attitude.

No such attitude has been expressed, except in your own head. Your anger may be based on what you 'think' you write, but people's responses to you is based on what you actually wrote.

They way I see it, there's a lot of hype caused by the media about paedophilia but it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet.

So again you support the result of the hysteria and see no harm to men and boys across our society.

The downside is that in nearly all cases the accused is male and it reflects bad as males on a whole. Even to the point I made earlier regarding the male photographer at the playground.

so it 'reflects' badly but does no harm to men or boys...... are you serious ?

15 years ago if not more, Friends ran an episode where Ross and Rachel hired a male babysitter and Ross was freaking out, but got over it. Unfortunately since then there have been cases coming out of the woodwork on a near weekly basis so times haven't moved on. Most recent cases relate to the church, with male accusers who were supposed to be guardians of the children. unfortunate but true.

So you now agree that despite there being MILLIONS of other people in the country, and hundreds of thousands of children, the numbers of abusers being exposed justifies treating every man and young man as potential abusers ...... astonishing. Truly astonishing.

sha the man

look i will just put in my opinion as a man if that is any good to you. i am 30 had myself sterilized and outwardly avoid all contact with everyone i actually am pretty sure that if i saw anyone getting attacked or broken down by the side of the road i simply drive/walk on by. this is not because i would not feel for them or that i would not be able to defend someone. i simply think the all men are rapists mentality is prevalent in society. so in order to protect myself i cannot interact with society. the more contact that one has with madness the more likely you will be to be taken down by it. ergo i dont

smash

Piliger wrote: »

No such attitude has been expressed, except in your own head. Your anger may be based on what you 'think' you write, but people's responses to you is based on what you actually wrote.

My anger? There's only 2 people here being angry and neither of them are me.

Piliger wrote: »

So again you support the result of the hysteria and see no harm to men and boys across our society.

Nice way to put words in my mouth. "it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet" - Did not mention men and boys. Said it's good that parents are kept on their toes.

Piliger wrote: »

so it 'reflects' badly but does no harm to men or boys...... are you serious ?

Please read above. :rolleyes:

Piliger wrote: »

So you now agree that despite there being MILLIONS of other people in the country, and hundreds of thousands of children, the numbers of abusers being exposed justifies treating every man and young man as potential abusers ......

That is not what I said, nowhere even close

Piliger wrote: »

astonishing. Truly astonishing.

What's astonishing is your inability to read.

Like I said earlier, if you had read properly "You'd swear I was here to disagree with the theme of the thread, when I'm not."

iptba

sha the man wrote: »

look i will just put in my opinion as a man if that is any good to you. i am 30 had myself sterilized and outwardly avoid all contact with everyone i actually am pretty sure that if i saw anyone getting attacked or broken down by the side of the road i simply drive/walk on by. this is not because i would not feel for them or that i would not be able to defend someone. i simply think the all men are rapists mentality is prevalent in society. so in order to protect myself i cannot interact with society. the more contact that one has with madness the more likely you will be to be taken down by it. ergo i dont

I'm sorry to hear that. (taking what you said at face value)

LeeHoffmann

i simply think the all men are rapists mentality is prevalent in society. so in order to protect myself i cannot interact with society.

this is like the male version of ´all men are potential rapists, therefore to protect myself I avoid all contact with men´. This being your third post makes me suspicious, but if it´s true - that´s a sad state of affairs and I´d advise you to get a little perspective. Most men and women don´t think all men are rapists as you claim

Piliger

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

this is like the male version of ´all men are potential rapists, therefore to protect myself I avoid all contact with men´. This being your third post makes me suspicious, but if it´s true - that´s a sad state of affairs and I´d advise you to get a little perspective. Most men and women don´t think all men are rapists as you claim

Unfortunately he is right. This is how society is now and the authorities support that. The default position is that the man is guilty is accused.

Piliger

smash wrote: »

"it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet"

I find it bizzare how you can argue that this this means anythingh other than this hysteria is a good thing and does no harm. That is what you wrote. You consistently write things and then deny you mean what you wrote. "it can't be a bad thing". You appear to have some kind of problem with the English language.

Many others think that actually it IS a bad thing. It hurts boys growing up, it hurts men. Badly.

And you really are tiresome in how to characterise people who disagree with you. I see no one angry here. No one. Only people trying to discuss a topic while some try to be disruptive and disingenuous.

LeeHoffmann

Unfortunately he is right. This is how society is now and the authorities support that. The default position is that the man is guilty is accused.

No he isn´t right. He´s throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It´s wildly over-exaggerating to say ´most men and women think all men are rapists´ and it´s completely unreasonable to totally withdraw from society

smash

Piliger wrote: »

I find it bizzare how you can argue that this this means anythingh other than this hysteria is a good thing and does no harm. That is what you wrote.

It's ok, lots of things are bizarre when you don't understand them. Or when you refuse to even try.

Piliger wrote: »

You consistently write things and then deny you mean what you wrote. "it can't be a bad thing". You appear to have some kind of problem with the English language.

Yes, it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their toes. If this had happened 30/40 years ago the church would not have gotten away with what they did.

Piliger wrote: »

Many others think that actually it IS a bad thing. It hurts boys growing up, it hurts men. Badly.

No, what hurts them are wrong assumptions. Not protective parents.

Piliger wrote: »

And you really are tiresome in how to characterise people who disagree with you. I see no one angry here. No one. Only people trying to discuss a topic while some try to be disruptive and disingenuous.

You know what's tiresome? And quite petty too... To call someone disingenuous just because you couldn't be arsed to read their posts and instead twist their words to suit your agenda.

The Corinthian

smash wrote: »

I asked who'd hire a male babysitter, then asked if they had a daughter would it change their mind, then said there's a perceived higher level of danger in hiring a male, then I explained why I think this perceived higher level of danger exists to see what other thought.

Actually, you've done nothing other than argue the case of why male babysitters should not be employed. Not only have you not suggested that this is in any way exaggerated, but have repeatedly suggested that it is not and is backed up by various 'facts' that rely upon a number of sweeping generalizations, which when it was pointed that they were sweeping generalizations you've quietly ignored.

So you've pointed out why there's a perceived higher level of danger in hiring a male, why this danger is so and then ignored any and all counter arguments against your view, despite claiming to seek other opinions.

They way I see it, there's a lot of hype caused by the media about paedophilia but it can't be a bad thing that parents are kept on their feet. The downside is that in nearly all cases the accused is male and it reflects bad as males on a whole. Even to the point I made earlier regarding the male photographer at the playground.

15 years ago if not more, Friends ran an episode where Ross and Rachel hired a male babysitter and Ross was freaking out, but got over it. Unfortunately since then there have been cases coming out of the woodwork on a near weekly basis so times haven't moved on. Most recent cases relate to the church, with male accusers who were supposed to be guardians of the children. unfortunate but true.

Essentially, what you're saying is that it is hysteria, but as it keeps kids safe, by keeping parents "on their feet", it's not a bad thing. Indeed, as most cases involve male abusers, you end by essentially justifying this blanket prejudice over all men.

Please, please, please stop pretending that you are in any way balanced in this discussion.