Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Is the fear of Paedophilia preventing positive male role models?

Options
1…89111314…18

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Zulu wrote: »
    I don't think it's "wrong" to choose either on personal preference, so long as you're not ignorant to your prejudice. That said, it is very wrong not to choose the male simply because you think he's a sexual predator.

    That is EXACTLY the point ... and the point he is trying to whitewash over.

    And what he conveniently choses to ignore and yet infer a defence of, is that maybe it is true that the choice split would not be 50:50 ... but it certainly would NOT be 100:0. And THAT is yet again at the heart of this discussion.


  • Options
    #303
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Zulu wrote: »
    :confused: Wut?

    You didn't really think that through, did you? So it's nothing, like, say, a teacher? or a nurse? or a doctor? or a bus driver? or a pilot? or a marine captain? or a....
    Point is, a babysitter isn't the only employee that has that level of responsibility.
    It's a position that give an extra level of responsibility in the fact that they are 100% alone with the child for extended periods of time.


  • Options
    #304
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    LeeHoffmann wrote: »
    a babysitter isn´t like any other employee in that when you hire a babysitter, you are risking the security and wellbeing of other people (your children). An important difference

    Actually, on this, you are essentially saying that sexual discrimination is ok when it comes to child care. Women are naturally good at looking after kids, anyways - sure it's what nature intended.

    So now we've established sexual discrimination is ok in certain roles (childcare), we should probably extend it out to military service...


  • Options
    #305
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Zulu wrote: »
    Actually, on this, you are essentially saying that sexual discrimination is ok when it comes to child care.
    Just read her post a few more times and can not see that implied anywhere. Pease elaborate.


  • Options
    #306
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Certainly not if people like you lend support to such prejudices through your acceptance of them and do nothing to alter them.

    He does not only accept them ........ he says they are a NECESSARY evil. i.e. that this prejudice and exclusion of men is NECESSARY.

    Thankfully I do not believe for a moment that this is a widely held belief. I believe that the vast majority of people are behaving as they do without any real thought, or having their actions challenged in a conscious way. Like most mindless and senseless prejudices.

    We need to have a platform where the people are confronted with the irrationality and illogic of their actions and show them that not only do their actions not make sense, but that their actions are harming society AND their children.

    Bigotry against homosexuals was not changed by people calling a necessary evil. Nor was racism against Black people or Irish people. Nor against the working classes. EDUCATION and FACTS, and the law, are what changed society, driven by activists who presented the people with the nonsense of their perverted prejudice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    smash wrote: »
    Just read her post a few more times and can not see that implied anywhere. Pease elaborate.
    Have another read, I'm sure you'll get it.


  • Options
    #308
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Zulu wrote: »
    Actually, on this, you are essentially saying that sexual discrimination is ok when it comes to child care. Women are naturally good at looking after kids, anyways - sure it's what nature intended.

    So now we've established sexual discrimination is ok in certain roles (childcare), we should probably extend it out to military service...

    Exactly. This poster is saying that is acceptable to allow people use their irrational and baseless fear as a basis for excluding boys from this role.

    The poster is also saying that excluding boys is logical because there is a 'real' risk.

    But the fact of the situation is that there is risk in everything in life. There is a risk in allowing your child to play in the garden, in allowing a child to be on it's own for 5 minutes. But the actual truth, based on actual facts of actual incidents of abuse, is that the risk of abuse by a stranger neighbour boy known to the family is tiny ! and it does not merit or excuse excluding one gender completely.

    That is the point.


  • Options
    #309
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Piliger wrote: »
    He does not only accept them ........ he says they are a NECESSARY evil. i.e. that this prejudice and exclusion of men is NECESSARY.
    Do you understand the difference between a need for parents to be on their toes regarding the threat of paedophelia vs the need for parents to be on their toes based of the belief that all men are paedophelia?

    Because I never said the latter.


  • Options
    #310
    LeeHoffmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭LeeHoffmann


    Actually, on this, you are essentially saying that sexual discrimination is ok when it comes to child care. Women are naturally good at looking after kids, anyways - sure it's what nature intended
    show me where I said that. Quote it


  • Options
    #311
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,750 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    Like it or not humans react to numbers and data and statictics. They do, and saying that they should not is illogical. They do, end of. Now, in relation to this topic I do not at all find it wrong, and nor would I criticise any parents for feeling that males poses greater risks to children in a sexual sense. I would not at all criticise parents for preferring that their children were cared for by females as opposed to males.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    LeeHoffmann wrote: »
    show me where I said that.
    hummm, it would appear that you don't fully understand "essentially saying". Suffice to say, I'm not quoting you directly when I say that.


  • Options
    #313
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Zulu wrote: »
    Have another read, I'm sure you'll get it.
    Nope, still don't see it. I must ave left my extreme end of the spectrum eye balls at home. I believe they're in my cupboard filed under 'irrational' and kept in a box labeled 'delusional'.


  • Options
    #314
    LeeHoffmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭LeeHoffmann


    hummm, it would appear that you don't fully understand "essentially saying". Suffice to say, I'm not quoting you directly when I say that.
    show me where I said it. You can´t? I wonder why


  • Options
    #315
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    smash wrote: »
    Nope, still don't see it.
    Not to worry.


  • Options
    #316
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,750 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    smash wrote: »
    Nope, still don't see it. .

    Makes two of us. It's irritating when posts are twisted so to argue against.


  • Options
    #317
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    LeeHoffmann wrote: »
    show me where I said it. You can´t? I wonder why

    Sigh.
    You say that it's acceptable to prejudice men when it come to minding children, because: "you are risking the security and wellbeing of other people (your children)".

    Your assertion is that men are a greater risk.

    If men are a greater risk, then, women are less of a risk.
    If women are less of a risk, then, it follows that they are better at caring for children (unless you feel security and wellbeing are bad things in childcare).
    Thus women, through the joys of their nature, are better at caring for children.

    ...according to your very own logic.


  • Options
    #318
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Zulu wrote: »
    Sigh.
    You say that it's acceptable to prejudice men when it come to minding children, because: "you are risking the security and wellbeing of other people (your children)".
    Nope, she said a babysitter is more important than other employees because your child is potentially at risk. This is fact. She also never once mentioned males. You are adding this into the equation.
    Zulu wrote: »
    Your assertion is that men are a greater risk.
    No it wasn't.
    Zulu wrote: »
    If men are a greater risk, then, women are less of a risk.
    If women are less of a risk, then, it follows that they are better at caring for children (unless you feel security and wellbeing are bad things in childcare).
    Thus women, through the joys of their nature, are better at caring for children.

    ...according to your very own logic.
    No, that's logic that you are assuming and assigning to her post.


  • Options
    #319
    jaffacakesyum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭jaffacakesyum


    Haven't had time to keep up with this thread but of what I've read, it's a real shame that people seem to be completely twisting each others words to try and prove they are right :confused: It is an interesting topic, though.

    I think it is a real shame that men feel they cannot go for teaching positions, child care positions etc. While I have plenty of male friends who are in such careers, I recognise there are a lot of guys in here who have had bad experiences in this area so I am not doubting that it is an issue. However, my opinion on it is as follow:

    -I think there IS genuine cases of stupid people prejudicing and making jokes with regards to men left alone caring for a child. This is a problem

    -I think there is a lot of cases here of people simply saying "Oh I would like to do this but I'm afraid of getting accused of x, y and z". Fair enough BUT you can't blame this on anyone. It's like me saying I would love a particular job in a particular company but it's 100% men, office based and I would be afraid of the consequences in working in such an environment. If I take the job, there is a small chance of my irking assumptions that I will be treated differently, maybe challenged about my abilities in a "mans world" etc. OR I take the job, and find there are no problems at all.


  • Options
    #320
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    smash wrote: »
    No it wasn't.
    Oh right, my bad.

    So if men aren't a greater risk, why do people have a preference for female babysitters again?


  • Options
    #321
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    smash wrote: »
    Again, I don't support them. This is becoming a joke at this stage! And I do not accept them either, but I accept why they are there. It's 2 different things completely.
    If one stays silent and accepts something, you're ultimately tacitly supporting it through your silence and your refusal to speak out, let alone act, against it.

    Shall we continue going around in circles and talk about why this prejudice is around and avoid the topic of counteracting it, some more? If so, I suggest the thread is truly spoiled. Well done.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If so, I suggest the thread is truly spoiled. Well done.
    I have to concur.


  • Options
    #323
    Piliger
    Registered Users Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    jaffacakesyum wrote: »
    Haven't had time to keep up with this thread but of what I've read, it's a real shame that people seem to be completely twisting each others words to try and prove they are right :confused:
    I don't see this - perhaps you would point out where this is happening.
    I think it is a real shame that men feel they cannot go for teaching positions, child care positions etc. While I have plenty of male friends who are in such careers, I recognise there are a lot of guys in here who have had bad experiences in this area so I am not doubting that it is an issue.

    -I think there is a lot of cases here of people simply saying "Oh I would like to do this but I'm afraid of getting accused of x, y and z". Fair enough BUT you can't blame this on anyone. It's like me saying I would love a particular job in a particular company but it's 100% men, office based and I would be afraid of the consequences in working in such an environment. If I take the job, there is a small chance of my irking assumptions that I will be treated differently, maybe challenged about my abilities in a "mans world" etc. OR I take the job, and find there are no problems at all.

    You appear to be confused about what is happening if you can make this very poor comparison.

    In your job situation what is your risk ? being treated badly ? really ? The men who have posted bad experiences in this thread alone are looking at a risk of being accused of being a pedophile ! The risk of having their lives destroyed ! How can you possibly make that comparison ?

    You appear to have no grasp of the comparative fallout here. You also don't appear to grasp how it feels to be in a totally innocent and normal situation in life as a man, yet looked at as a potential abuser, a potential pedophile and to have people treat you as such.


  • Options
    #324
    LeeHoffmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭LeeHoffmann


    Your assertion is that men are a greater risk
    Nope. That´s where you´re mistaken. If you read what I actually wrote (post 300) you´ll see that I said that it´s ignorant to think that all men are untrustowrthy.
    Now having said that, if a person decided that black people/homosexuals/all males/all females/all Americans etc were untrustworthy - I´d find that ignorant, but I would defend their right to make that decision.


  • Options
    #325
    jaffacakesyum
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,207 ✭✭✭jaffacakesyum


    Piliger wrote: »
    I don't see this - perhaps you would point out where this is happening.

    Oh God...there are too many examples to begin with :pac: But there is no point going around in circles as TC said. I suspect whatever I point out will be dismissed somehow.
    You appear to be confused about what is happening if you can make this very poor comparison.

    In your job situation what is your risk ? being treated badly ? really ? The men who have posted bad experiences in this thread alone are looking at a risk of being accused of being a pedophile ! The risk of having their lives destroyed ! How can you possibly make that comparison ?

    You appear to have no grasp of the comparative fallout here. You also don't appear to grasp how it feels to be in a totally innocent and normal situation in life as a man, yet looked at as a potential abuser, a potential pedophile and to have people treat you as such.

    What is the risk? Well, the risk (and I'm not saying I hold this viewpoint, it's just an example) is that my abilities are questioned as a woman in a man's world, comments made about me behind my back/to my face every day, I am objectified, maybe groped etc. I know some women who have had troubles in the workplace like this, but it's a different topic for a different day. What I will say is that it was pretty life destroying for them. It's just an example.

    Another example would be choosing to become a doctor. If you choose to become a doctor, you may face the risk of being accused of inappropriate behaviour or abuse or malpractice, when in fact you are completely innocent. Does this stop anyone, men or women, from becoming doctors? No, because the risk is very small and if someone is accused, the appropriate investigations are taken.


  • Options
    #326
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    Zulu wrote: »
    So if men aren't a greater risk, why do people have a preference for female babysitters again?

    In my case, as I assume it is with a lot of people, it's not a preference. It's just that I've never met a male babysitter. Or maybe people feel more comfortable because historically it's how it was done. That's not sexist though.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    If one stays silent and accepts something, you're ultimately tacitly supporting it through your silence
    That's not true. As not speaking out against males not being babysitters is a non issue in my eyes, it's just a silly excuse to start an argument.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    and your refusal to speak out, let alone act, against it.
    I'd love to hear how you suggest this is done.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Shall we continue going around in circles and talk about why this prejudice is around and avoid the topic of counteracting it, some more? If so, I suggest the thread is truly spoiled. Well done.
    Don't dare accuse me of spoiling a thread when in fact it's been you and 2 others who have been arguing because I don't accept the words you're twisting in my posts.


  • Options
    #327
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    smash wrote: »
    That's not true. As not speaking out against males not being babysitters is a non issue in my eyes, it's just a silly excuse to start an argument.
    Not speaking out against gender-based prejudice is tacitly supporting that prejudice. Were we having a discussion about how Travellers or Africans are discriminated against and all you did was tell us why they're discriminated against, but never bothered to speak out against it, what would you conclude?
    I'd love to hear how you suggest this is done.
    Better education for parents, children and potential child carers about the safety implications. Better psychological screening of potential child carers, regardless of gender. Better representation in the media of male child carers, not just professionally, but even in the family. Better legislation that recognizes men's role as child carers.

    That's off the top of my head. Do you have anything constructive to add?
    Don't dare accuse me of spoiling a thread when in fact it's been you and 2 others who have been arguing because I don't accept the words you're twisting in my posts.
    I am neither twisting your or walshb's posts. You're the one who's done nothing other that wax lyrical on why this prejudice exists without touching on remedying it. You're even the one who's even cited some of these gender-based generalisations (such as boys being less mature than girls) as 'facts' that justify (and the moment you called it a fact, this is what you did) such prejudices.

    It's not my fault if you actually share some of these prejudices and feel uncomfortable when it's pointed out to you.


  • Options
    #328
    LeeHoffmann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭LeeHoffmann


    OK OK can we cut out the sniping and just discuss the topic? I think we´re all on the same side here, even if we don´t all agree about the severity of the problem or particular aspects of it.
    Better education for parents, children and potential child carers about the safety implications. Better psychological screening of potential child carers, regardless of gender. Better representation in the media of male child carers, not just professionally, but even in the family
    the above are things we can aspire to, although some might be difficult to implement (eg psychological screening - I´m a teacher and I know the hoops you have to jump through to get garda screening. I can´t see the Irish government paying for mass psychological screening of teachers atm...or were you referring to babysitters/creches exclusively?).

    I do think the media should be challenged a lot more - both genders are negatively misrepresented. Something that really irritates me is that fathers in ads are usually clueless, lazy, incapable fathers who can´t cook. There is an ad out atm where the mother has to work and the Dad cooks the dinner for his son and daughter. Mum comes home just as the family sits down to dinner and asks the kids for their verdict on Dad´s cooking (with ´that look´ on her face). Surprisingly Dad has pulled it off :eek: The ad is notable for me in that it flies in that face of the usual media representation of fathers. Maybe this is a topic for another thread though...


  • Options
    #329
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Not speaking out against gender-based prejudice is tacitly supporting that prejudice. Were we having a discussion about how Travellers or Africans are discriminated against and all you did was tell us why they're discriminated against, but never bothered to speak out against it, what would you conclude?
    But I did speak out, I said multiple times it was wrong.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Better education for parents, children and potential child carers about the safety implications.
    Like what? Not all men are child abusers. I know that the vast majority of abusers are male and that's a fact, but just ignore that and remember that all men are not abusers.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Better psychological screening of potential child carers, regardless of gender.
    Expensive.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Better representation in the media of male child carers, not just professionally, but even in the family.
    Male babysitter does a good job... yea that's a real headline if ever I saw one.
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Better legislation that recognizes men's role as child carers.
    Is there currently legislation that discriminates against them?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I am neither twisting your or walshb's posts. You're the one who's done nothing other that wax lyrical on why this prejudice exists without touching on remedying it.
    But you are twisting words. a lot!
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    You're even the one who's even cited some of these gender-based generalisations (such as boys being less mature than girls) as 'facts' that justify (and the moment you called it a fact, this is what you did) such prejudices.
    Do girls mature faster than boys? Are girls generally more responsible than boys?
    The Corinthian wrote: »
    It's not my fault if you actually share some of these prejudices and feel uncomfortable when it's pointed out to you.
    What's uncomfortable is the down right arrogance and finger pointing in what some of you have been saying.


  • Options
    #330
    walshb
    Registered Users Posts: 54,750 ✭✭✭✭walshb


    smash wrote: »
    Like what? Not all men are child abusers. I know that the vast majority of abusers are male and that's a fact, but just ignore that and remember that all men are not abusers.

    This was and is my point too. And yes, we know well that many many men are not abusers, but the statistics show us that men commit these crimes at a far greater rate than women. Why then should it be wrong, odd, or strange for people to place a higher sense of alertness should they need or want to leave their child alone with a male. It goes without saying that they may well feel that bit less comfortable when a man is involved.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    smash wrote: »
    Not all men are child abusers. I know that the vast majority of abusers are male and that's a fact, but just ignore that and remember that all men are not abusers.
    So, by your logic, in the US, one could argue, not all African Americans are criminals, but given that they represent the vast majority of criminals, both in and out of prison, then we should it is natural that we view them as potential criminals.

    Oddly, were you to say that publicly, outside of a KKK meeting, you'd probably be branded a racist. And this is where I object to your and walshb's positions, because beneath the attempts to appear balanced, you're actually down deep holding those very prejudices you claim not to support.

    As to your responses to what I suggested to deal with the situation, I did specify you might add something constructive.


Advertisement