« Previous | Home | Next »

Diddle He Or Didn’t He?

Because I value trusting one’s instincts, I’m prompted to write about your advice to “Uneasy,” the woman whose boyfriend would go into another room to talk on the phone to his stepdaughters from a previous relationship. I feel the woman was expressing suspicion that he still had some interest in their mom out of an unwillingness to believe that he may be behaving inappropriately toward his stepdaughters. One in four women reports having been raped or molested in childhood, and stepfathers play a prominent role in those statistics. He may not be a “molester,” but maybe he’s asking the girls about their bodies in ways that make them uncomfortable. You should have encouraged “Uneasy” to call a truce with her boyfriend: He takes calls openly, and she drops the nagging if there isn’t anything unseemly going on.


Oh, the dark world of people who prefer to take their phone calls in private. Yes, this guy could be a molester, and could be asking these girls inappropriate questions about their bodies. And when I walk away from my boyfriend to take a call, I could be planning the violent overthrow of our government, and arranging to trade my neighbors’ twins for a suitcase nuke -- or maybe I simply see no need for corroborating witnesses when I try to reschedule my cleaning lady.

The woman in question admitted that she had no reason to believe her boyfriend had any interest in an ex-wife he’d divorced over five years earlier, or was anything but a stand-up guy trying to remain a father figure to his very young stepdaughters. Yet, according to you, merely because he preferred to talk to the girls without his jealous girlfriend standing over him, I should have encouraged her to say something along the lines of “Hey, honey, I’ll calm down if only you let me listen to your calls so I can be sure you aren’t raping babies.”

Warped thinking like yours makes me realize how lucky I am to be a woman and white as typing paper. Although I recently got stopped by a cop for going the wrong way on a one-way street (he rolled his eyes and let me go when he realized I wasn’t drunk, just ditzy), I’m generally safe from automatic presumptions of criminality like Driving While Black or Living And Breathing While Male.

Here you are, parroting this outrageous man-bashing propaganda -- “one in four women reports having been raped or molested during childhood” -- maybe because you heard it repeated so often you assumed it was fact. This figure is a common misquote of a survey by radical feminist sociology professor Diana Russell. Although Russell presents herself as a truth-seeking social scientist, her work reflects a substantial bias against men, as evidenced by her claim, based on one of her studies, that “a considerable amount of marital sex is probably closer to the rape end of the continuum.”

The actual figure from Russell’s survey was an unbelievable one in 2.6 women sexually abused before the age of 18 -- a figure she arrived at with substandard sampling techniques and what UC Berkeley professor Neil Gilbert, in his book Welfare Justice, calls “research that lumps together relatively harmless behavior such as attempted petting with the traumatic experience of child rape.” For example, one of Russell’s questions asked, “Did anyone ever try or succeed in touching your breasts or genitals against your wishes before you turned 14?” Well, if you put it that way, even I was a victim of child sexual abuse: It was sixth grade, we were playing spin the bottle in somebody’s basement, and the boy who kissed me tried to feel me up.

Should we really count a quick boob grab I got from some sixth-grader the same as the experience of some other 12-year-old girl who was repeatedly forced to have sex with her uncle? We should if we’re looking to criminalize being male -- and never mind if that poisons relations between women and men, dilutes funding and attention to real victims, and leads to prejudicial policies like British Airways’ that no unaccompanied minor can sit next to a man. (Which -- horrors! -- means some unaccompanied brat is more likely to be seated next to me!)

Women best protect themselves by appraising men as individuals, based on evidence, not by leaping to the assumption that “stepdad” equals sex predator. In other words, my advice to “Uneasy” stands. My advice to you? Pick up Christina Hoff Sommers’ Who Stole Feminism? to get a better idea of the damage done by radical feminist activism tarted up as serious science. Contrary to what the likes of Diana Russell would have you believe, you should come to the conclusion that the answer to “Hey, Dad, how’d you meet Mom?” probably isn’t “While raping her at knifepoint.”

Posted by aalkon at May 9, 2007 10:10 AM


Perfect, as usual, Amy :-)

Posted by: Anne at May 9, 2007 7:23 AM

"...but maybe he’s asking the girls about their bodies in ways that make them uncomfortable."

Yeah, everytime my fiance walks into the other room to talk to his parents on the phone, I think the same thing. And also when he's talking to his co-workers, his bandmates, his dermatologist, his gasterontologist, .... The list goes on and on of people whom he begs to know about their patellas and rotator cuffs.

That letter writer is just so...IRRITATING. Given that there's no evidence that there's anything wrong going on, it's this current LW and the original LW who have corrupted minds and hearts.

I'm sure Amy or someone responding to the original column has already said this more or less, but if that girlfriend can't trust the guy, if she feels so threatened by little stepdaugghters, then something's seriously broken with her and their relationship.

Posted by: Wendy at May 9, 2007 7:51 AM

I also take my calls in private (I'm female). I completely understand the guy doing it. Rape though? Oh my god! How speculative can you get?

Posted by: Edi at May 9, 2007 7:59 AM

Uneasier should really consider visiting drphil.com. On the Dr. Phil show, apparently, neither he nor the producers have any qualms about lending legitimacy to unfounded, random accusations of child molestation by featuring those accusers as guests. And subjecting the accused to public scrutiny, humiliation, and polygraph tests. Oh, yeah, lie detector tests are foolproof.

This about healthy boundaries. Husbands and wives should be entitled to their private phone conversations, emails, journals, thoughts.

Posted by: Wendy at May 9, 2007 8:55 AM

Ok...I agree that there is no evidence that the guy taking private calls is doing anything wrong. However, sexual abuse of women and girls (boys too) is not a myth perpetrated by hysterical feminists. I don't have any statistics to quote or refute and frankly, I think that statistics pretty much depend on who's doing them - people usually find what they want to find. But, speaking from personal experience only, most of my women friends have experienced some form of sexual abuse ranging from actual rape (incest actually) to a stepfather who never touched my friend but took naked pictures of himself and slid them under her (locked) door. Of course abuse occurs on a continuum and is also dependent on perception (so, no..if you weren't traumatized by the boob-grab then it wasn't abuse). But I don't think we do ourselves a service quibbling about the prevalence or severity of abuse. If anything, abuse is probably under-reported, especially among boys. And with all due respect to Professor Gilbert, "attempted petting" isn't necessarily a "relatively harmless" activity when you take into account the power differential between a child and adult.

Posted by: Rita at May 9, 2007 9:29 AM

I think that statistics pretty much depend on who's doing them

Yes, some people seek the truth, and design their studies accordingly, and some people simply seek to confirm what they believe to be the truth.

The problem is, most people don't understand the difference between a valid and reliable study and a biased one that cannot be repeated with reasonably similar results. And, unfortunately, "most people" includes many journalists and people who run organizations that use stats or "stats" to support their contentions about a particular issue.

The stories of "most of your friends" -- that's called "anecdotal evidence." We don't know what kind of person you are -- that plays into that. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but I'd say (and guess) exactly the opposite about most of my friends.

The problem is, "attempted petting," the way the question was written isn't winnowing out experiences like mine -- and probably for good reason, because it ups the numbers. That's an example you can understand of bias.

Oh, and P.S. the spin the bottle guy wasn't the only one who "abused" me. My little sister also grabbed my titty, when they were just starting to come in, and said "You've got boobies, you've got boobies."

Was I touched when I didn't want to be, on my breasts? Yes. Should this mean I'm counted along with teenagers who were fucked by their uncle for years? I don't think so.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 9, 2007 10:22 AM

You know, I count myself among the sexually molested--when I was little, by a family member.

And it absolutely amazed me when, as I grew older and broadened the amount of people I met and knew, that girls and women could get along so well, so much like buddies and even good friends, with their male relatives. Their fathers, brothers, couins.

I'm not going to drop any data here, because statistical research on sexual abuse is not within my purvue, nor do I really want to preoccupy myself with those figures. But I do fervently hope and do believe--perhaps out of a naivete--that NON-ABUSE is the norm.

Posted by: Wendy at May 9, 2007 5:56 PM

You know, I count myself among the sexually molested when little. By a family member.

And it absolutely amazed me, as I grew older and broadened the number of people I met and knew, that girls and women could get along so easily with their male relatives. Like buddies, good friends even. Fathers, brothers, cousins.

I am not going to drop any statistical data here, because that's not within my purvue nor do I care to know figures on such a depressing topic. But I do fervently hope and do believe at my core that NON-ABUSE is the de facto standard. A naive worldview, perhaps to some, but one that I've crafted out of learning that not every man is a lascivious pervert out to fondle me. With the exception of my fiance, of course. :)

Posted by: Wendy at May 9, 2007 6:02 PM

YIKES. To even insinuate that the guy in question "may be behaving inappropriately with his step-daughters" is a sign of a diseased mind at work. It also stuns me that such an idea is delivered so off-handedly...

She owes an apology, that aint EVEN funny.

Posted by: Morbideus at May 9, 2007 6:27 PM

Wendy, I'm so sorry to hear that you've gone through this. I want to recommend Albert Ellis (in terms of therapy). I don't know if you're in or near New York, or if he's taking new patients, or would take you, but he has a very good outlook on this: essentially, that you were molested as a child, and somebody should have protected you (he wouldn't use the word "should," but that's close enough)...and that now you're an adult, and there's no giant person who's going to sweep down and do that to you...so it doesn't make sense to have that same psychological orientation. I believe there was a piece quoting him on this in The New Yorker. I'm still writing now, but I saw your comment and wanted to drop in and let you know about this...so you might Google this and consider seeing Ellis.

FYI, I've traveled across the country to see a therapist. Did it last March when I realized I was too judgmental in my writing process and it was stopping me from getting a book done. There are very few therapists I can say for sure are good, and I read about this guy in my friend Sue Shapiro's books, and realized he was great. I wasn't about to fuck around trying out a bunch of nimrods in Los Angeles. Flew out to see him last March, saw him about five more times on iChat AV (over the computer), just for reinforcement, and my writing process is much better than it was. I'm almost finished with two sample chapters for my agent to take to New York (along with the book proposal, of course!)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 9, 2007 6:36 PM

Ah, Amy, how very sweet of you to think of me!

Unfortunately, I am not a jet-setting columnist. I am just a schlubby software engineer, so I will content myself to perhaps finding books or any kind of literature written by Ellis.

You know, how very sad and startling I did not even think--until now, literally, as I read your post--to do any kind of self-guided research on that experience, and its lingering after-effects on my adult self. I have mentioned it some to a few therapists, but didn't delve into it too deeply.

Thanks again for your kind words, and the lead. Life is mostly positive now, but it can always improve. :)

Posted by: Wendy at May 9, 2007 6:54 PM

Hey, listen...unfortunately, I am not a jet-setting columnist either. I'm working on living in the style I'd like to be accustomed to...but in the mean time, my entire outfit usually costs less than the average girl's shirt, and I get my hair cut at Supercuts. But, there's one area that's worth it, and that's fixing whatever is broken psychologically...dealing with this will make your whole life work better. I don't think Ellis charges more than the average therapist, and I'd bet that you could see him maybe for a double session and he'd give you the thinking you need to go forward and have a different life. That's what I did with the guy I saw.

Many therapists aren't worth a shit. I'm shocked when I talk to some of the people in the biz and hear how completely unwise they are, and irrational, and into silly kinds of therapy that don't really help people in any pragmatic way.

You can plan this in advance -- fly to New York on el-Cheapo air, stay at the 47th Street Y, and see Ellis and fly home. Doing this, again, will make everything in your life work better. You will have no idea how weighed down you've been by this until you get to the other side. Life is to short to go around with an anchor on your back.

Here's the phone number and other info:

Albert Ellis Institute
45 E. 65th Street
New York, NY 10021
PHONE: 800.323.4738 212.535.0822
FAX: 212.249.3582

E-mail us: info@albertellis.org

There are also Ellis-trained therapists around the country -- there's a link to find them at AlbertEllisInstitute.org

Hope you do this. Of all the things you could spend money on, I really can't think of anything more important than your psychological well-being.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 9, 2007 7:58 PM

British Airways won't let unaccompanied kids sit next to men? Gack...

I'm male, and I like kids. In my free time, I teach a kids' judo course, I tutor a friends daughter in math (because the mom hates math, and doesn't want the attitude to rub off), and do other activities with kids as the opportunity arises.

Some years ago, the soccer team my boss's daughter was on was desperately looking for coaches. I volunteered, but was turned down. My boss told me that the discussion pretty much ended when someone brought up the questions "Why would a man from the next down over want to coach our young daughters? We know...".

I find this kind of paranoia just sickening. And personally offensive as well.

Posted by: bradley13 at May 9, 2007 11:34 PM

Driving While Black or Living And Breathing While Male.

That was a riot!!

Posted by: Amax at May 10, 2007 5:22 AM

Bradley13 - That's awful. My boyfriend is an amazingly kind and strong person and a perfect role model for any child (and a kick ass boyfriend, too). He used to spend a lot of time in the Big Brother program (before he went back to law school). He would hang out w/ the same child who didn't have a father or reliable male figure in his life. Did I for even a second think "ooo he must play basketball with 12 year old boys because he wants their asses!" ? Definitely not. But it did add to my sentiment that he is a selfless and generous person.

And p.s, bradley, I'm sure those parents also don't keep score at the soccer games because that would "damage" their children's "egos." I daresay maybe it was a good thing they barred you from coaching. I'm sure there will be other opportunities for you to help out kids in the local community because there are so many kids who could use a stable mentor in their lives!

Posted by: Gretchen at May 10, 2007 10:58 AM

The Ever-Wise Goddess writes:

Oh, and P.S. the spin the bottle guy wasn't the only one who "abused" me. My little sister also grabbed my titty, when they were just starting to come in, and said "You've got boobies, you've got boobies."

Was I touched when I didn't want to be, on my breasts? Yes. Should this mean I'm counted along with teenagers who were fucked by their uncle for years? I don't think so.

One point that no one's made so far is that when the standards are that vague, you'll come upon a huge number of MALE victims of abuse. Yes, I know. Only females have the distinct honor of ever becoming victims of sexual abuse, because men are just so evil, but if you ask men the same questions, you're going to find male victims of sexual abuse. Or did you think that no woman ever grabbed a man's butt without receiving express permission?

Posted by: Patrick at May 10, 2007 3:40 PM

Rita, I'm sorry that you and your friends have had such awful experiences. But, y'know...I wasn't molested. Of all of the literally hundreds of friends and friendly acquaintances I've had throughout my life who have told me deep, dark secrets that would turn your hair...only one has been molested. One. This is why anecdotal data isn't reliable - among other things (IMHO), we are consciously or subconsciously attracted to people like ourselves in certain ways. If I were to assess the population based on my friends and my friends alone, I'd conclude that the vast majority of people like science fiction and/or want to work in finance AND think that drugs should be legalized tomorrow.

"Oh, the dark world of people who prefer to take their phone calls in private."
Amy, LOVED this line. Hee!

Posted by: marion at May 10, 2007 6:02 PM

Thank you! And you're absolutely right about anecdotal evidence.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 10, 2007 6:18 PM

Can't take credit for the line, but one of the bloggers I occasionally check out once wrote, "The plural of anecdotes is not data." Sums it up nicely. (Yes, yes, actual data is made up of tons of anecdotes, but you know what I mean.)

Posted by: marion at May 10, 2007 6:37 PM

Recommending Albert Ellis is a very good call, Amy. I'm glad to read that you think as highly of him as I do.

Posted by: soleil at May 10, 2007 7:48 PM

Gah, I meant to say, "The plural of ANECDOTE is not data." Carry on.

Albert Ellis, eh? Interesting...

Posted by: marion at May 10, 2007 8:21 PM

My friends experiences (not mine, btw) notwithstanding, even the CDC says that rape/sexual abuse is an underreported crime. But to be clear, my point was not to venture a guess at how many women are sexually abused. I don't think anyone knows that. I just don't understand why Amy's response included a critique of Diana Russel's study data that seemed to say (perhaps this was unintended ) that sexual abuse isn't that prevalent. I have not read Diana Russel's study design nor do I know anything about her data sets, sample size, or what variables she controlled for. Common sense says that if you're taking part in a study on sexual abuse and you're asked “Did anyone ever try or succeed in touching your breasts or genitals against your wishes before you turned 14?”, if you answered yes you were probably not thinking of the time you and your kid sister wrestled over the remote. But even if Diana Russel's study was methodologically flawed, how does this bear on the case at hand? With the very limited evidence we have, there's no reason to believe that this guy was abusing his former stepkids. Period. We don't have to minimize abuse or attempted abuse as "relatively harmless" to make this point. Nor do we have to argue that abuse is statistically unlikely. Even if rape occurs in only 1 out of 100,000 cases, I would hope that we would look at each individually and not dismiss it because odds are it didn't happen.

Posted by: Rita at May 11, 2007 9:35 AM

Well said Amy. Thanks for talking sense.

Posted by: Heretic at May 11, 2007 4:15 PM

commenting on the flawed science of the 1 in 4 rape statistics is going to bring down the wrath of feminist pork funded womens groups.
The flawed and misleading 1 in 4 rape statistic is the feminist silver bullet.. and their gravy train when seeking funding at the halls of congress.
Middle class white women are feeding like hogs at the halls of congress (feminist pork)..have you ever seen hogs feeding at the trough..I have, and their so piggish that they squeeze all the other pigs out, so they get all the food.

Posted by: scott kirk at May 11, 2007 4:24 PM

Hi Amy,

I am a 34 male. When I was 6 I was sexually abuse by two neighbors who were around 18 at the time. I was forced to perform oral sex on them. For all the reasons that usually make boys keep quiet about sexual abuse, I didn't told about that to anyone at the time. But I have no doubt that what happened had a huge impact on myself. I was a very depressed and disturbed teenager. I feared that what happened had turned me into damaged good. For example, I used to think that no woman never, ever, would be attracted to me (and, as you know, this sort of thing in a man is almost always a self-fullfiling
prophecy). When I was 21, I finally managed to get a girlfriend, the first woman I kissed, had sex with and trusted enough to talk about my abuse. She urged me to get therapy, which I did. And then I was there, in my first session, feeling very vulnerable talking about this secret that I have hidden for many years to a completely strange and you know what was the first think she asked me when I finished my story? "Did you ever fantasize about having sex with children"? That was so weird and offensive to me that I couldn't believe she was really asking that. It took me a few months to perceive that she was not very good at her job. But that question had a lasting effect over me. I used to love being around to my younger cousins and they all adored me, but after that I became withdraw with them. I start having, for many years later, dreams where I was falsely accused of molesting children. And, again, I felt like crap. It took me almost ten years to try therapy again. Fortunately at that point I was married to a psychologist and she referred me to one of her teachers. And this therapist was really wonderful. Sorry for this long post, but I wrote all this just to say that when someone raises suspicions without any cause over a person, it does no one a favor. If I was a child molester, the chances that that stupid therapist would stop me from raping a child were zero. But her question caused me a lot of suffering.

P.S. I am from Brazil, english is no my native language. Sorry for all the mistakes above
P.S. 2 I love your column

Posted by: Vladimir at May 11, 2007 7:08 PM

Wow-- I was at a Men's Rights site that linked to this page. I haven't heard this kind of talk from a woman in a very long time-- esp one in the media. I have come to think all women are so pro-female that they are anti-male or are just plain misandrist, esp with the mountain of female cheerleaders for killing/maiming/mutiliating/burning/boiling-in cooking-oil defenseless, sleeping men , who are then vilified as the actual aggressor with almost no evidence. Gotta come back-- this woman is great-- kind of gives me hope

Posted by: jay at May 11, 2007 9:13 PM

Hey, thanks, Jay. That means a lot. (I'm the writer.)

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 11, 2007 9:44 PM

Vladimir, your English is great. Thanks for posting your story. When people who experience actual abuse talk about their experience, I think it's helpful to others who haven't dealt with theirs. That psychologist is horrible, and I hope there are places (perhaps a psychiatric/psychology board) to report somebody like that in your country. Chances are, you aren't the only patient this psychologist has caused to suffer further.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 11, 2007 9:48 PM

Brilliant reply article, Amy - I'm proud to see such a level headed woman prepared to smash our culture of male bashing head on!

There are two types of feminism, that which seeks equality and that which flat out hates men.

We need more women like yourself to stand up to the later and reverse the culture of hatred that radicals seem to have so easily been able to instill in some mainstream areas of society.

Posted by: James at May 12, 2007 9:49 AM

Thanks very much. I'm working on breaking through to run in more dailies (a lot of features editors won't run my column -- including those at the LA Times, where's it's banned!) If you'd like to see it in a paper near you -- either in a daily's features section or in an alt weekly -- please ask them to pick it up. It makes a real difference when a number of readers request it.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 12, 2007 10:16 AM

My boss told me that the discussion pretty much ended when someone brought up the questions "Why would a man from the next down over want to coach our young daughters? We know...".

I find this kind of paranoia just sickening. And personally offensive as well.

And think of all the single single mothers out there raising children without healthy male role models in the kids' lives. A great coach can make a huge difference in a kid's life. But, how many are turned away from the profession thanks to fears, based on nothing specific about them as individuals, simply their gender, of being accused of terrible ulterior motives rather than just a desire to help kids? Where are the cries of sexism from the feminists?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 12, 2007 10:31 AM

Wow that was great Amy. To me it is so bleeding obvious that feminism has gone out of its way to demonize men, and that influence has branded men villains and left men out of our consideration and charity. What the majority believe about rape, domestic violence and the wage gap is what allows men to go on being branded as evil and it IS the government, the media and school system that perpetuate these feminist distortions. This indoctrination allows us to eat up the feminist claims without question.

Thank you Amy for spreading the word and defending my sex.

Posted by: hujo at May 13, 2007 3:18 PM

Thanks, Hujo.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 13, 2007 3:54 PM


I know you like kids... WHOLESOMELY. That's honorable for a man. But in this day and age, men are labeled as potential rapists and child predators; so, you should avoid them at all costs. Don't even look at them! I wouldn't even advise dating someone with children ... or dating at all. That's as dangerous as ingesting a sea of cyanide.

The best thing for men to do in this "men are evil" era is to focus on educating themselves and making great contributions to society. This is exactly what I'm striving to do. As far as entertainment goes, leave dating and children alone and have fun with friends.

Posted by: D.J. at May 13, 2007 8:36 PM

How did everything become so dark and dangerous all the time? I think the original LW was a lunatic with low self-esteem that felt threatened by merely sharing her boyfried with someone else. I certainly hope that if their mess of a relationship should work out, they never reproduce. Can you imagine what that kid would go through? Trying to compete with his/her mother for the attention of the father. What a nightmare...

Posted by: Renee at May 14, 2007 11:47 AM

Great column and awesome writing Amy. I saw you on glennsacks.com.

Can you imagine what that kid would go through? Trying to compete with his/her mother for the attention of the father. What a nightmare...

Oh don't you worry about that. One or two false accusations, a restraining order, and Bob's your Rapist.

Posted by: Pete at May 15, 2007 3:40 PM

Thank you Amy. You are doing both men and women a great service. Is there anything us ordinary folk can do to support and encourage your efforts?

Posted by: highlander at May 15, 2007 5:24 PM

I'm in complete agreement with Jay. I, too, was linked from a Men's Rights website and told to check this out. Very well-handled! I've read Christina Hoff-Sommers's book, and I also recommend it to anyone who wants to discover just how far radical feminism has gone in driving a wedge between men and women.

By the way, it's refreshing to see a woman who doesn't see every man as a potential rapist. I had a habit one summer of jogging around the local college campus at odd hours of the night. I often encouraged my friends to give it a try since the nights were so much more pleasant than the hot, muggy summer days. But without fail, every female friend I talked to balked at the idea of going ANYWHERE unescorted, much less at NIGHT around a campus just crawling with testosterone-laden college men. It didn't matter that instances of rape or muggings here in the past decade could be counted without having to take off your shoes; they were deathly afraid of all those maniacs who spent all day just pretending to be pleasant, average, everyday guys.

Sigh. It can be tiring after a while. Please keep spreading the truth.


Posted by: Serin at May 15, 2007 5:53 PM

Thank you so much...it means a lot.I work really hard to write it well and get it right...means a lot that you noticed.

What you could do is request my column in either your local alt weekly, or as an alternative to the usual advice columns they run with all the expected thinking in daily papers (ask the features editor of a daily to run my column, and tell the editor it's only once-weekly).

Some editors don't want to run my stuff -- they don't like getting angry letters from radical feminists or old ladies. (A women's studies class -- a lecture with a sizeable number of students -- once got the assignment of writing letters to the editor to get me fired from a Pennsylvania paper [they failed -- the editor in chief likes my column, I was told]). Anyway, if enough readers request it, they'll often pick me up.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 15, 2007 5:58 PM

Thanks, Serin...I think we were posting at the same time.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 15, 2007 6:10 PM

Marion, I believe that the reason she brought up the 1 in 4 statistic is that this is the kinda thing driving the anti-male paranoia. I happened to be guilty of being a Living Breathing White Male. I am also guilty of being straight and even religious! So I get tried of being viewed as a religious bigot, a patriarchal oppressor, a racist, and a homophobe. It wears on you after awhile.

Try to approach a woman to ask her out and feel the fear and suspicion. It's not a good feeling and will not help with your self-esteem.

Anyway I have ranted enough.

Posted by: Zach at May 15, 2007 8:16 PM

Bottom line: If "Uneasy" can't trust the man she's with enough to let him take phone calls in private, then she shouldn't be with him.
If there is any uncertainty in her mind about whether he truly wants to be with her and only her, then she's either a) not recieving the affection she deserves, or b) incredibly needy and demanding, and no attention, no matter how great, will ever satisfy her.
Either way, the writer came across paranoid and unreasonable.

I don't want to hear the 1 in 4 statistic crap. Cite a source, and let me read up. (Jeez, you think you'd have learned SOMETHING from Amy by now.)

Amy's advice was right on the money with Uneasy, and letters from millions of other paranoid women won't make that fact any less true.

Posted by: Jaime at May 15, 2007 9:54 PM

Amy, you have now become my favorite columnist! This stuff is great! I am so shocked at seeing some of the comments from women that I'm just sitting here in disbelief! It is so amazing to me that you see emails here from women that state they were never sexually abused, yet if you go to Feministing it would appear that every single female has been a victim of this type of abuse.

I go to Feministing often just for the shock value and to look at the hysteria displayed there. I am now realizing that it is a closed forum, that anyone with a view that is not the same is not allowed to post, or is deleted.

Once again, what a breath of fresh air to see some folks rise above all of this nonsense and look at men realistically. Thanks!

Posted by: mike at May 16, 2007 11:39 AM

Thanks so much, Mike. Only spam is deleted here. I don't read blogs like Feministing, although I looked up Pandagon when the Amanda Marcotte/John Edwards campaign blogging issue was being debated. I couldn't believe some of the illlogical, hateful stuff posted there. And when I asked, in a comment, whether they were posting another person's intellectual property without permission (a B. Kliban cartoon they had on an post attacking libertarians), they deleted my comment. There's fair play for you! Of course, they WERE stealing it I later learned from B. Kliban's rep.

PS For the people who ask what they can do to get my views more widely read, I was banned from the Los Angeles Times' features section (thanks to a joke I made about my breasts in the piece I wrote about my stolen pink Rambler -- some women at the LAT got angry about it, and vowed that it would be "a long time before (my) breasts were in the paper again!" [mature, huh?]). The editor in charge of picking syndicated stuff for the paper once even sent me a letter, "No need to send us anything again. We're content with the writers we have. We're not seeking new writers." Anyway, if you're so inclined, please do request my column in alt weeklies and dailies near you...especially the Los Angeles Times' features section. If I can get into that paper, more features editors across the country should be more inclined to run me.

As for who to write to at the LAT, Sherry Stern and John Montorio are in charge of syndicated features. Sherry.Stern@latimes.com is the one directly in charge -- John.Montorio@latimes.com is her boss. If you do send an e-mail to either one of them, and get a reply, you might forward it to me at adviceamy@aol.com.

At other papers, go for the editor and/or the publisher of an alt weekly, and the features editor of a daily.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 16, 2007 12:04 PM

Hello Amy...

The following essay I wrote several years ago is the primary reason that I avoid any and all contact with women as much as possible...

Unwanted Sexual Contact

My wife used to work in an office where
nearly all of her coworkers are women not
quite but almost. Where the office manager
calls another employee a hoochie mama
because she refuses to abide by the dress

On another occasion in a meeting this same
manager asked another employee that she
manages to stand up and turn around. When
she complied my wife’s manager grabbed this
employee by the seat of her pants while
instructing the female employees not to wear
pants with back pockets.

For years women have complained about
sexual harassment in the work place and have
demanded laws to put a stop to it. And
companies have gotten the message by being
hurt where it hurts most: in their
pocketbooks. That only large monetary awards
by juries can send that sexual harassment
will not be tolerated.

Companies are now so scared of being sued
that they are quite willing to do away with due
process. By firing any male employee who has
been accused of sexual harassment often
without doing an investigation. Resulting not
only in the loss of a job and career but in a
bad record that can follow the affected
individual for life.

So it would seem surprising to see women,
who’ve made it into management, actually
display this unacceptable behavior. But human
nature being what it has always been I’m
neither surprised nor mystified by the way
these women behave. Quite simply they have
the power and they’re determined to not only
use it to benefit themselves but to abuse it as
long as they can get away with it.

In this women are no better, worse or
different then members of the male gender
have ever been. While those who continue to
think that women are morally superior to men
have willfully blinded themselves to human
nature. Doomed to repeat the mistakes of the
past by failing to learn the lessons taught to
our ancestors.

Another reason that I’m not surprised at
the modern day woman’s penchant for sexually
harassing members of the male gender. Quite
simply is because as a male throughout my
lifetime I’ve had no choice but to deal with
unwanted sexual contact from women myself.

One of my first memories of unwanted
sexual contact was when my father and I were
living with his mother. One evening as I
walked through the front door I was grabbed
by one of my fathers female friends and
kissed on the cheek. Because my grandmother
had purposely hung a sprig of mistletoe over
the threshold.

During the summer after I’d turned
thirteen my first stepmothers sixteen year
old niece. Who lived with us and watched my
stepsister along with my brothers and I while
my father and stepmother worked. Attempted
to seduce me by inviting to have sex with her
after she’d molested me.

During the ninth grade I attended two
schools Dalton High and Rabun Gap a private
school where the Fox Fire books were
created. I began the school year at Dalton
High where one day the teacher had stepped
out of the room. I was literally chased out of
my science class when one of girls kept trying
to kiss me.

Later after the first quarter my father
sent me to Rabun Gap where a different girl
grabbed my briefcase. Then demanded a kiss
for its return and on another occasion banged
on the door of the gym where I worked as the
sole custodian. Then forced her way inside
when I answered the door refusing to leave
unless I kissed her.

Even my own mother refused to keep her
hands off my face when I was finely able to
grow a beard for the first time. It wasn’t
enough to compliment me she had to go and
embarrass me too by making a big deal over it.

Then just a few years ago my wife and I
stopped at the Stone Mountain Wal-mart to
purchase some pants for our son. While they
went to the mens clothing department I
decided to walk around the store.

As I was browsing along the school supply
isle I looked up to see a teenage African-
American girl walking towards me. Out of
nowhere she came from around the corner
heading straight for me. Then as I stepped
out of her way she turned, bumped into me
and she rubbed her breasts across my chest.

I was so surprised and taken aback that I
didn’t quite know how to react or just what to
do. Luckily my wife wasn’t there nor did
anyone else witness this girl bumping into me.
However there is no doubt whatsoever in my
mind that had I confronted her or given her
a well deserved scolding.

Or had she decided to accuse me of
touching her breasts instead of her rubbing
them up against me. It would have been me
who would have gotten into trouble perhaps
even arrested with no recourse whatsoever.
This double standard that assumes that men
are always guilty and women are always
innocent . Is what not only scares me but
makes me so angry that I almost can’t see

As long as men and women work together in
close quarters there will always be those of
both genders who will harass the other.
Either inadvertently, by engaging in rude
behavior or intentionally in which case the
offender should be punished.

So not only should the rules apply to both
sexes but the consequences should be the
same. For only when both sexes equally
respect each other will the unwanted sexual
contact that neither wants stop.

Posted by: Dapoet at May 16, 2007 5:26 PM


I don't know what the purpose of that long rant was, but your parents must be awfully proud to have sent you to a private school. I cannot believe that you wrote that essay for anyone other than yourself. An instructor would have awarded you a nice F for it, and an editor would have thrown you out of their office. Please work on your grammar before composing anymore of your "essays". People will take you more seriously if you can compose at least one sentence correctly and do better than just throw a bunch of rambling thoughts together. At no point was there anything resembling a concise idea in that whole section of verbal vomit. Unbelievable. Really.

Posted by: Renee at May 17, 2007 11:27 AM

I myself have encouraged many, many, many men (probably at least 200 in the last 10 years- not counting the countless men who have probably taken my advice on message baords) to either leave a woman with children from a previous marriage or not even get involved with a single woman with children in the first place. It is like a mine field and a snake pit of deceit, lies and exagerrations. In today's sick, poison culture of false or wildly exagerrated accusations that the feminists have created, if a man today dares to even disipline a child, especially someone else's, he runs about a 75% chance of being falsely accused of either sexual molestation or physical harm. If you are male DO NOT SPEAK TO CHILDREN- EVER- FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE. PERIOD.

Are you a single mom who cannot find an intelligent, handsome man with a good job who is interested in you for more than just a quickie? Look in the mirror. Are you taking an active political advocacy role in changing the outrageous rape and/or 'sexual assault'(whatever that is)laws wherein a man can be arrested and bulldozed straight through court on nothing more than an accusation? Simply because she feels guilty, vindictive, or wants attention? Why aren't you advocating that false accusations should be punishable as a felony? Hmm, interesting. Women's silence on the issue is DEAFENING. Not to mention the fact you must not care anything about your sons that you are raising, or brothers, father, friends, neighbors- what is wrong with you people who dare to call yourselves good mothers while all of this is going on and doing NOTHING?

It is also of the upmost importance for a man to completely ignore women in the workplace as well because of the rampant false accusations of sexual harassment for financial profit by women today. All the men at my firm began to do this two years ago because of a false accusation and now quite pleasantly almost all the women have since quit (thank God) due to being ignored and treated as a threat themselves.. how ironic. I say the bed you make is the bed you will now have to lie in.

The biggest part of the problem here is that women and men cannot have an intelligent dialouge because we are now living in two seperate worlds. Women, in their hysteria, accusational, unaccountable world where 'abuse' is something they wear like some kind of sick badge of honor for each other with their own set of rules and amorality wherein any act is justified. And men living in their 40-70 hour work world where they simply do not have the time of energy to contend or even be aware of the mountain of ill will that is mounting constantly against them by women anywhere watching a constant stream of daytime trash TV that deals with nothing but sick sex- unable to even beleive that so much hatred and backstabbing can even exist in the heart of what he considers to be the object of his affections.

Women have created a sick, sick, sick world- more perverse than any child molester could ever dream of. This is the end of our civilization. Thanks, ladies. (Oh, and by the way, if you break down on the side of the road- I won't be stopping to help- or help you with anything)Byyyye.

Posted by: mark at May 17, 2007 11:28 AM


If you don't know what the purpose of Dapoet's "rant" was, you either did not read or comprehend the original article and the numerous comments above.

Maybe your essay critique (on a blog's comments section) is itself "verbal vomit".

Did something upset you about the CONTENT of what he wrote? How about commenting on that without resorting to insults, or do you have nothing constructive to add to the topic at hand?

Posted by: Monad at May 17, 2007 5:59 PM


First, I had already made my comment on the issue at hand (use the mouse and scroll upward).

Second, the entire rambling was such a mess that little of it made any sense. I realize I was insulting, but its very hard to take someone seriously that writes like a fourth grader. If he was trying to make a point and "strike one for the good guys", he did a poor job of representing his ideas.

As to the content of his verbal vomit (yes, I stick to my original opinion), it contributed little to the conversation at hand. It was more of a "pity me" rambling. There was no substance there, other than "my life was so terrible, no one will ever understand what I've been through". Ugh. It's the shit that Lifetime movies are made from. No, I don't watch that crap either.

Posted by: Renee at May 18, 2007 6:33 AM


Dude, whats up with the rant? You sound like someone from "Americanwomensuck.com"..You obviously don't get it at all. The enemy is not women, nor has it ever been women. The enemy is the system. The political system, the court system, and the education system. It is not the fault of women, they simply did what they had to do, and used what they could, and shouted and shouted until "the system" started to believe them. The environment we have right now, the man-hating and the feminist courts and all of the "wymen's studies" programs---this is all due to a large group of women who got together to take action, formulated a battle plan, and implemented it! And it worked. A whole society has been slowly infiltrated with feminist teachings, feminist doctrine, and a victim mentality used to accomplish goals.

If we want to balance things back to a truly equal society, we as men must take action. I mean lobbying, PAC's, legislation, protest marches. Sitting around and bitching and moaning about how horrible it is to be a man in todays world does absolutely nothing. It just makes you look like a big crybaby. I have visited that AWS site and "nomarriage" site...I have to ask, what in the world are you guys trying to accomplish??? The AWS site is just like feministing, it is closed for the average person to make a comment...laughable actually...a bunch of men making a little club to bitch and whine about how bad they are treated and how great it is to marry foreign women. Is it helping the situation? No. Is it providing anything to help men? No. And while we are all sitting around bitching, NOW is using their Action Alerts to mobilize, gather resources, organize, plan, and deliver what they need to get what they want. Its all about finding a way to get what we want. The way is to organize into one big group instead of all these little strange splinters.

Sorry about the Rant Amy, I just feel like some of these morons don't have a clue.

Posted by: mike at May 18, 2007 8:18 AM

"I just feel like some of these morons don't have a clue."

It's interesting how the little people with tiny minds on threads like these have to resort to name calling- it is the only way they can bolster their self-esteem. It is your first clue that this person is contributing zero to the world.

If you are unaware of websites and individuals who take direct political action, then I suggest you get out from underneath your rock and visit

As for my laser sharp description of reality.. at least half of all men do not even know what is going on and need to be brought up to speed. That has to take place in order to get them politically motivated in the first place. Why do you have to have such basic general knowledge explained to you?

And last but not least- the subject has nothing to do with me.

Posted by: mark at May 18, 2007 8:32 AM

Glenn Sacks? Every day baby!

It's interesting "Mark", that the only thing you choose to focus on in my post is the very last sentence...

No reason to get defensive dude or get that itchy trigger finger! Chill out!

I'm gonna take my tiny mind and continue to contribute zero to the world!

(laughing hysterically!!!!!)

Posted by: mike at May 18, 2007 8:55 AM

"Glenn Sacks? Every day baby!"

"No reason to get defensive dude or get that itchy trigger finger! Chill out!"

Uh, just a piece of advice, "Dude.." women are difficult enough to communicate with in any forum dealing with serious issues already, so it's certainly not beneficial to you (and for the image of men in general) to be using terms from the 1960's.

If you use terms such as 'baby' 'chill out' and 'dude,' it doesn't take a private detective to figure out your greatest 'contributions' are to the beer and bong industries, and no one is going to ever take you seriously, much less women.
You sound like a clown.

So if you want to be taken seriously and you truly believe in the issues you claim to believe in, you'll start taking yourself seriously and sharpen up your communication skills, and lay off the weed so the fog can clear in your head long enough for some reality to sink in as in my original comment.

Posted by: mark at May 18, 2007 10:48 AM

Here's a clip I found that summarizes how we as a society arrive at this present situation.

Posted by: mark at May 18, 2007 11:19 AM

Gosh Mark, I guess you put me in my place and also exposed me for the pot-smoking, crack-snorting, 60's throwback that I am. I am desperately out of my league having a conversation with you. Sorry. I'm going home now and smoke a bowl and contemplate the world through a drug induced fog.

While I'm at it I think I'll really worry about this country and how it is filled with narcissistic assholes like you.

Posted by: mike at May 18, 2007 1:59 PM

"The enemy is not women, nor has it ever been women. The enemy is the system."

Nonsense! A significant number of women ARE the source of the problems men face. Men like you who uphold these disgusting male-haters, such as the ones you mention in the political system, exacerbate the problem, driving it to egregious proportions. Wisen up and brush up on "womyn's" studies.

Did you notice the spelling of the word "women" converted to "womyn?" Guess what, Mark. There are "womyn" out there who hate men to such extremes they don't want any part of the word "man" or "men" in gender pronouns used to describe them. I bet you didn't know that. It's time for you to get informed. Read a little Valerie Solanas, Robin Morgin, Germaine Greer, Maureen Dowd, Marilyn French, etc. Investigate the demonic Kim Gandy, President of the NOW, who on Valentine's Day advised women to divorce their husbands. If these women had it their way you and all other men would be exterminated off the planet. They don't give a rat's roast how much you defend them. As far as they are concerned, men who defend women's honor is simply perpetrating a "patriarchal scheme" to deceive women into believing they are fighting for women's causes when in truth they are doing it for their own selfish reasons.

Educate yourself. I'm not going to insult you and call you a "moron," but I will call you misinformed because you seem to be nescient regarding gender issues. You'll learn that an alarming number of women out there present themselves as "enemies" to boys and men and have become, not only a problem, but a threat to us!

And now to Amy:

I do not mean to offend you by making this post. I greatly appreciate the work you are doing to liberate boys and men from the inexorable injustices we face in this "male-hating" era. But reading stories like this brings out the ire in me, and so my indignation burns in my posts.

Posted by: Marty at May 18, 2007 2:56 PM


I appreciate your impassioned discourse on how women are the real enemy, but I still beg to differ with your opinion.

Did you ever wonder why it is that innocent little girls end up becoming man-haters? Were they on the playground one day and all of the sudden a group of 8-year-olds started protesting for their rights and blaming men for everything that went wrong? Not in my world. This stuff is learned. This stuff is taught. All of it is so firmly indoctrinated now that women are learning alot of that in grade school! My sons school library has books on the womens rights movement, abortion, and all kinds of liberal drivel. He is SIX for God's sake! I'm telling you, the enemy is not a gender, nor is it Kim Gandy, nor is it any particular woman. Women have been successful pushing their agenda...why not take lessons from them and work on the system? Why not coalesce into a large voting block that can sway political opinion? Look around you. Every day women's groups are pushing their agenda in congress, they even have one of their own running for President!!!!

I think it is fruitless and totally incorrect to blame individuals or to blame a gender...thats doing exactly the same thing that we say they're doing! You're getting rather close to stating you are a woman hater, and thats exactly what you are saying they are.

The point is that we are all on the same side. However, I don't intend to sit around and just bitch about it, and its pointless to say that women in general are to blame. Way, way, way back in the 60's perhaps there were several women who launched the parade, but I'll tell you, the original goals of feminism back then are way different than they are now. I was married to a feminist, and yes, i had to read all of that "pioneering" literature. So I know what you are talking about.

Its not about taking sides, its about doing something to fix the problem. Hating the other side does nothing.

Posted by: mike at May 18, 2007 4:40 PM

Pushed hard enuff in the right direction, no doubt the wolf would be seen under the fleece.

Try discussing, with a women, the (non-existant) reproductive and parental rights of men. That always gets the truth out.

Posted by: hmmm at May 18, 2007 10:20 PM

Oh, come on...merely having a vagina instead of a penis doesn't make a person unfair. See below, an excerpt from my column "Fetal Attraction," about a woman who tricked a man into having a kid by saying she was on birth control:

(by Amy Alkon) In no other arena is a swindler rewarded with a court-ordered monthly cash settlement paid to them by the person they bilked. While you don't mention being forced at gunpoint to have sex without a condom, potentially getting socked with two decades of hefty fines for being a careless idiot seems a bit like being sentenced to 100 years hard labor for stealing a muffin. The law is not on men's side. Matt Welch reported in Reason magazine (2/04) that welfare reform legislation forces some men to pay child support for kids who aren't theirs -- sometimes, kids of women they've never even met -- unless they protest, in writing, within 30 days, that they're victims of a daddy-scam.

While the law allows women to turn casual sex into cash flow sex, Penelope Leach, in her book Children First, poses an essential question: "Why is it socially reprehensible for a man to leave a baby fatherless, but courageous, even admirable, for a woman to have a baby whom she knows will be so?" A child shouldn't have to survive on peanut butter sandwiches sans peanut butter because he was conceived by two selfish, irresponsible jerks. Still, there's a lot more to being a father than forking over sperm and child support, yet the law, as written, encourages unscrupulous women to lure sex-dumbed men into checkbook daddyhood.

This isn't 1522. If a woman really doesn't want a kid, she can take advantage of modern advances in birth control like Depo-Provera or the IUD, combine them with backup methods (as recommended by her doctor), add an ovulation detection kit, plus insist that doofuses like you latex up. Since it's the woman who gets a belly full of baby, maybe a woman who has casual sex and is unprepared, emotionally, financially, and logistically, to raise a child on her own, should be prepared to avail herself of the unpleasant alternatives. It's one thing if two partners in a relationship agree to make moppets, but should a guy really get hit up for daddy fees when he's, say, one of two drunk strangers who has sex after meeting in a bar? Yes, he is biologically responsible. But, is it really "in the child's best interest" to be the product of a broken home before there's even a home to break up?

I do find that, while there is discrimination against men -- which I try to challenge and change with my column -- there is, on the part of men like the commenter who calls himself "hmmm" above, a lack of prudence about who they get involved with. My boyfriend would never have to deal with a situation like the one described in the above column because I'm an ethical person, and take personal responsibility for my body, just for starters. Not every woman, and not many women, think this way. Just like not every guy is a great guy. In other words, you can't just see a hot chick, close your eyes, and hope everything turns out okay. You actually have to have values and put in the time and energy to figure out whether she meets them.

I've chosen badly in my time -- in my 20s, and then I learned -- but what I never did was paint all men with a broad brush because of my laxity in choosing in the past. Doing so is irrational -- and ugly, quite frankly. And, again, taking personal responsibility for your mistakes is the best way to avoid making them again in the future.

Saying all women are wolves under the fleece, like "hmmm" does above -- well, that's as easy, and kind of the same thing a lot of feminists do to men, huh? Rather than taking personal responsibility for one's own bad choices.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 19, 2007 12:06 AM

Basically, Mike above has the right idea. It's not blaming but working against discrimination and for fair treatment for men, and against the prejudice that's institutionalized by literature written by women (and even some men) intent on maintaining what I call "The Victim Industrial Complex" that feminism has become. The way you do that isn't by coming off as hysterical as the feminists and screeching that all women are evil. There are valid causes here -- such as the widespread paternity fraud I mention in the column above, which is glad-handed by lawmakers like Sheila Kuehl. She should be run out of office, just for starters, and then other causes should be addressed, following the model of suffragettes like Elizabeth Cady Stanton who fought for equal (not special pretending to be equal) treatment for women.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 19, 2007 12:15 AM

gee, you made alot of self serving assumptions in your response.

l dont have kids and am generally celibate, the ultimate in reproductive responsibility. Makes for a much easier and relaxed life too. Them buddhists are definately onto something.

the things is, when really pressed, every woman in MY experience does in fact have fairly rigid views about reproductive rights. Women generally see it as a case of women having the rights and men having the responsibilities, which ironically, is the exact position taken in your response.

Wolf in sheeps clothing is just a saying, to which you took personal offense. Point of that is most people dont even see that they are a bit sly under the soft, conciliatory padding.

Posted by: hmmm at May 19, 2007 7:02 PM

It's ironic that Mike mentioned feminism and the women's rights movement in response to my post when those terms were never used in my post to describe male-hating women. He must subconsciously believe that some forms of feminism and women's rights movements are a form of male hatred. Quite amazing!

I was very careful as to how I worded my post with the exception of accidentally addressing Mike as "Mark" in one of my sentences. I deliberately chose to avoid labeling misandrist women as "feminists" to circumvent controversy because I know some have differing views of feminism--some view it good, some view it bad. For this reason, I chose to use the term "male-hating women."

How anyone ever concluded that I believe "all women are evil" is beyond me; it isn't even insinuated. Throughout my post, I never stated that women as a whole are man-haters and a problem. I was careful enough to describe what type women I was referring to by using modifiers like "MALE-HATING...," "AN ALARMING NUMBER...," "A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER...," etc. By using these modifiers, I evaded generalizing all women and I think it makes it quite conspicuous that I am not referring to ALL women. I know ALL women are not male-haters; some women are. I know that ALL women are not problems and threats to boys and men; some women are.

Mike wrote:

"...Did you ever wonder why it is that innocent little girls end up becoming man-haters? Were they on the playground one day and all of the sudden a group of 8-year-olds started protesting for their rights and blaming men for everything that went wrong? Not in my world. This stuff is learned. This stuff is taught."

Where do you think this teaching of male-hatred originates from, this poisonous venom influencing so many people--not just women--in western society? It started with misandrist women.

"...I'm telling you, the enemy is not a gender, nor is it Kim Gandy, nor is it any particular woman. Women have been successful pushing their agenda...why not take lessons from them and work on the system? Why not coalesce into a large voting block that can sway political opinion? Look around you. Every day women's groups are pushing their agenda in congress, they even have one of their own running for President!!!!"

Mike is right! The enemy is not "women," the enemy is MISANDRIST women and the men who support them. Some of you "let's not blame," but the point of blaming is to define an enemy so that you can destroy the problem at its roots. It's just like a tree. If you cut down a tree and leave the roots, the tree, in time, will rise up again; you destroy it at its roots, the tree will never grow again. The same principle applies to misandry. The roots of misandry are male-haters. These people must be thoroughly "destroyed," reprimanded for their injustices and purged from all societal institutions. By doing this, we obliterate the roots of the problem. If these people act unjustly towards boys and men and we simply speak against it without taking actions to punish the perpetrators of these injustices via reprisals and severe penalties, then we've simply cut down the tree, so to speak, without destroying the roots; and they will continue to be a threat to boys and men. The "let's not blame" strategy may explain why men have been unsuccessful in eliminating anti-male sentiments permeating western societies.

Mike says "the enemy isn't Kim Gandy, nor is it any particular woman," eh? Have you ever heard of the Fatherhood Initiative? It's a governmental program that aims to help fathers get involved in their children's lives and support them. Well, our, uh...beloved...Kim Gandy didn't like this. She wanted to file a lawsuit against the Fatherhood Initiative program with the claim that it "discriminates against women." Apparently, illogical Kim Gandy overlooked all the governmental programs that discriminate against men. Should I state a couple? WIC (Women Infants and Children) is one. Men could never use this program. How about welfare? On the surface, this program appears to be available to both men and women, but when you scratch pass the surface and get deep into the soil, you realize that men can only truly benefit from welfare if they are married because a person is uneligible for welfare if they do not have kids. Now, you are probably wondering how the heck is this "no children, no welfare" policy discriminatory to men. Think. If a relationship goes sour who ends up with sole custody of the children in most cases? I don't even have to finish this route. Only in very few instances will men receive custody of their children after a relationship fails. Could you even imagine a man with children from a past relationship applying for welfare to support them? Not at all. If anything, he'll be forced to pay child support whether he has the financial means to do so or not and jailed if he fails to do so. Considering these factors, it's obvious women are the ones benefiting from welfare, a governmental service that is funded with both women AND men's tax dollars. Men should have equal access to welfare benefits with or without children when in need. Where is Kim Gandy when government programs like these discriminate against men? No where to be seen. Yet, she can attack probably the only governmental program created to assist men. How dare her! I find her more repulsive than excrement! I find it hard to believe that any sensible man--or woman--wouldn't view her as a dangerous enemy to boys and men who needs to be stepped down from her position as president of the NOW.

To those of you who suspect I am a "woman hater," I never allow myself to hate anyone because hate can breed violence. However, I can grow to DETEST someone or something that brandishes enmity toward others in a form of hatred. Yes, I have an unfathomable detestation for people who exhibit signs of hatred for boys and men. No, I do not wish to exact violence against them; I simply find them repugnant! For this, I will not apologize.

Posted by: Marty at May 19, 2007 7:03 PM

The road to tyranny is paved by good intentions. Do-gooders are some of the most misguided people around. A manisfestation of this phenomenon is promoting inequity in the the name of the children. There have been more than one leader thru the ages who has done very bad things to a lot of people in the name of children.

You gotta understand Amy, that consistently and systematically being maligned for my gender and seeing all manner of licks, tricks and campaigns utilised by women to work over men, it gets real hard to trust the apparently reasonable and fair minded words of women. Women are notorious for indirect, subtle, tripple speak and any man who has had any experience of women knows this to be true. Its not a slight its just haw it is for us. Us men are always interpreting and looking for the true meaning in what women say. usually we just wait and see what a person actually does, that speaks for itself. This modus is essentially how women got men to fall into step. The whole sexual revolution/free sex thing of the 60s was a classic ploy to use (the promise of) easy sex to get men to suspend rational thought by thinking with their small heads. Very sly, very devious. Eternally effective.

l wanna believe, oh how much l wanna believe people like you. But until l see your gender walk the talk, its all hot air in my book.

Feminism in and off itself isnt a bad thing. The problem is two fold.

1. Its a hard road to travel, it means embracing the bad as well as the good, the responsibilities with the rights and truely deeply challenging oneself by looking in the mirror instead of pointing the finger. Us men have been compelled to self examine and much of that has yeilded fruit. This self examination is a direct product of feminism and paradoxically has yeilded so called mens rights activism. As the old saying goes 'careful what you wish for, you might get it.' Sometimes l think feminism has done more to liberate men than women. Most guys l know do their own chores. Havent ever known a woman to change a tyre (its not that hard and doesnt require anywhere as much strength as you might think). Trivial yet indicative examples.

2. The consequence of women realising just how difficult it is to be equal (few women see men as their equals, they generally look down on us, we cant bare the species), is that women have for the most part given up the crusade. Liberty is a DIY project and it takes a lot of effort. Hence most have given up. Most people have descended into the realm of self serving cynicism. Dog-eat-dog, screw thy neighbour, before they screw me type of stuff. Women pay lip service to equality, preferring equality only when it suits them and running the damsel in distress/dainty/weak female routines when the going gets tough. At this point the movement, like all ideologically driven socio-political philosophies, descends into extremism and fundamentalism. Unfortunately, these ideolgues have worked themselves into positions of influence from which they can actually impose their fruityness on the rest of us. And many women seem to enjoy seeing men squirm. Its vengence for millenia of (alleged and very narrowly defined women-only-oppresion) by those who didnt do it to people to whom it wasnt done in a time when none of us existed. Not only is that sort of inter-generational karmic retribution/revenge a very bad indicator of character its seems a bit crazy.

Then the masses disconnect and give up, which imo is where a large minority of men (and increasingly women) now find ourselves.

Personally, lm acting out of self preservation. Its sort of got nothing to do with women for me. They're just a scapegoat, a muse for my personal discontent. lm obviously aware of this and it bothers me that those whom conquer us by dividing us have so successfully driven a wedge thru such a fundamental human symbioses. l dont like the system, it strikes me as unfair. l see women dont speak up against what favours them when it does so at the expense of others. Human nature l guess. Its tiring when a personal issue gets flipped and turned into something about the other person all the time. Its as if you dont count. Once that realisation sets in and you realise that women aint sugar, spice and everything nice, that they can infact be quite damaging to your existence, its hard to go back. Its a bit like the Matrix. The reality is actually quite austere. Some guys know it but prefer the illusion. Good for them, whatever works. lm not one of them. My eyes are now fully open and l will not close them. l will however, look away from the maelstrom and gaze upon a clear blue sky and no amount of mind games will ever have me deny what is true.

You gotta understand it is all sooooooo very DISSAPPOINTING.

Posted by: hmmm at May 19, 2007 8:10 PM


Attacking a writer about sentence structure and grammer is the hallmark of a feminist verbal bully who knows that she has not only met her match and can't refute the points made...But is a female who not only has never become an adult and is in the habit of engaging her mouth long before the little light bulb inside her brain begins to flicker...

Posted by: DaPoet at May 20, 2007 4:36 PM

Unfortunately Amy the real enemy isn't just the feminists and their Doormats (males who are so addicted to estrogen that they unthinkingly give into the feminists unreasonable demands and whims)but the average female who though she claims that she isn't like all the other females out there...Yet unhesitating takes full advantage of the unjust laws that have been intentionally and delibertely written with malice and forethought to place the average male at a legal disadvantage to the average female...

Posted by: DaPoet at May 20, 2007 6:16 PM

As I wrote in the comments on a recent blog item I posted, if you're only against discrimination when being against it benefits you, you're not against discrimination at all...it's just working for you as a good cover for getting special treatment.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 20, 2007 6:44 PM

Amy I don't know of any men's rights group that is demanding special treatment like the feminists always advocate for females...All MRA's want is to be treated fairly and equaly yet sadly that seems too much to even ask for...

Posted by: DaPoet at May 20, 2007 9:15 PM

Amy I don't know of any men's rights group that is demanding special treatment like the feminists always advocate for females

I don't, either. I was talking about feminists. So many of them profess to be for equal rights, which means they should abhor all discrimination, and not be for discrimination when discrimination serves them.

I'm against affirmative action, minority journalism programs (racism in my book), and anything that promotes, funds, or includes somebody based on their gender, sexuality, or other special point.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 20, 2007 11:08 PM


I'm willing to admit when I've met my match intellectually. When trying to contend with a mental giant such as yourself, I lay down my sword. No, not because I think that you've bested me, but because a debate with you would be futile.

I still stick to my original position. You're ramblings have little to say other than how hard you think you're life has been. It's pathetic and sad. As to your comments about my being a feminist bully, you have no idea how wrong you are about that statement. How you would have gathered that bit of insight from the little that I wrote is astounding. At least when I was being insulting, I was sticking to the facts that I knew something about.

As to your grammar issues...start small. Learn when to use a period. The rest should follow from there. Good luck.

Posted by: Renee at May 21, 2007 7:32 AM

Here's a short article I found just today (and the comments made about it):

'It Doesn’t Take Much'--A judge’s response when asked what it takes to convict someone of child molestation.

"Public hysteria regarding child molestation has changed the rules of the criminal justice system. Child physical and sexual abuse cases must be defended in an entirely different manner than the normal criminal case. In theory the constitutional rights of the defendant are still in place, however in reality those rights do not apply. The truth is: The accused is presumed to be guilty...Recognize you are in for the fight of your life."--Paul Stuckle

An interesting article below by attorney Paul Stuckle concerning false allegations of molestation. Stuckle does good work in Texas defending those falsely accused of domestic violence or child sexual assault, or who have been targeted by Child Protective Services.

In the article below, Stuckle details how innocent men can live a nightmare when accused of child sexual abuse. Paul can be reached at falseaccusations@stuckle-ferguson.com.

False Allegations of Child Sexual Assault
By Paul Suckle, Esq.
March 12, 2007

“It doesn’t take much.”
(A Judge’s response when asked what it takes to convict someone of child molestation.)

Nothing incites the fury and anger of any community like the discovery of a reported child molester in the neighborhood. Unfortunately no charge is easier to make against an innocent person and more difficult to disprove. The word of a child, whether mistaken, coached, or the result of a deliberate lie, is all that it takes to ruin lives.

False allegations of child sexual assault can be easily made. False Allegations arise under a multitude of circumstances from children of any age and in every socioeconomic group.

Sometimes allegations are made by children with a goal of removing a family member from the home. Sometimes a false allegation is made by a young child who does not understand the gravity and consequences of their words. Often questionable remarks by children are misinterpreted by frantic family members and evolve into allegations by over zealous social workers. False Allegations are often made by emotionally disturbed adolescents with a specific agenda to hurt someone. Spouses, and former spouses may also use a false allegation in a divorce or custody battle to seek legal leverage.

TYPICAL WRONG REACTIONS OF THE FALSELY ACCUSED-"I’m innocent. This is crazy. If I talk to them and explain it will go away.” This is the initial feeling of the wrongfully accused. They have done nothing wrong and therefore there should be no adverse consequences. Those in authority will quickly recognize their innocence, the mistake, the overreaction, and it will all go away.

THE SPECIAL NATURE OF CHILD SEXUAL ASSAULT-Public hysteria regarding child molestation has changed the rules of the criminal justice system. Child physical and sexual abuse cases must be defended in an entirely different manner than the normal criminal case. In theory the constitutional rights of the defendant are still in place, however in reality those rights do not apply. The truth is: The accused is presumed to be guilty.

TIPS FOR FIGHTING FALSE ALLEGATIONS- Recognize you are in for the fight of your life

SELECTING THE RIGHT ATTORNEY-Very few attorneys specialize in fighting false allegations. Many lawyers represent clients with child abuse and child sexual assault charges. These lawyers will handle such cases in addition to a general criminal defense practice.

thurston861 said,

Choose an attorney.

With what money?

Madness. Simply madness.

They demonized men with the child molestation hysteria of the 80's, so they could criminalize being Male in the 90's.

Show me any issue for men where there is any presumption of innocence.

May 21, 2007 at 8:05 am
DcFather said,

The correct quote, if it was honest, would read:

It doesn't take much, if the accused is male. If the accused is female, then it doesn't take much for her to walk away with no charges filed.

My child was molested by a female and I reported it, but when it came to trial the molestation, alleged by the child, not me, was never even mentioned.

American justice is a joke, a sham, a farce, in shambles, and save a few select areas, is based strictly on race and especially gender. Republicans want to lock criminals up forever, Democrats want to let them walk away with counseling, and like the judicial branch neither party of the legislative branch cares if the alleged criminal is actually guilty or innocent.

May 21, 2007 at 9:55 am
mruffolo said,

Feminists created the false stereotype that men are bad. That men are bad around wives and girlfriends. That men are bad around children. Bad due to violent and or lustful actions and thoughts.

In the 80's feminist wives falsely accused the fathers of having sex with the children as part of the gamesmanship of divorce to separate the father from his home, children, and property. Today wives and our government (police and family court) use false domestic violence charges.

Further if the accuser is found to be a liar, which is, giving false testimony against the man. The feminist government turns their back on the situation, for example, Crystal Mangum, a stripper, accusing three men of gang rape.

This is no different in family court when the wife gives false testimony against the husband/father (In divorce most lawyers who represent fathers are not helpful).

I not puzzled why Muslim countries restrict the rights of women to participate in leadership for government, teaching, and work. Women cause trouble.

Posted by: mark at May 21, 2007 10:27 AM

False accusations of child molestion are so popular now there's even a song about it! Everybody sing along!

Posted by: mark at May 21, 2007 10:33 AM

Note about posting articles here - please post only short blockquoted excerpts -- not the whole article -- and include the link to the piece (to conform with "fair use" standards). Another person's writing is their intellectual property, and I respect that, and ask that people posting on my site respect that, too. By posting the link, people will go to the article and read it if they want to.

And, on a technological note: please only post one link per comment or my blog software will drop-kick your comment to my spam folder. If you want to post two links, please post two separate comments; one with each link.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 21, 2007 10:40 AM

You mean like this?


pet·ty /ˈpɛti/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pet-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective, -ti·er, -ti·est. 1. of little or no importance or consequence: petty grievances.
2. of lesser or secondary importance, merit, etc.; minor: petty considerations.
3. having or showing narrow ideas, interests, etc.: petty minds.
4. mean or ungenerous in small or trifling things: a petty person.
5. showing or caused by meanness of spirit: a petty revenge.
6. of secondary rank, esp. in relation to others of the same class or kind.

Posted by: mark at May 21, 2007 1:19 PM

Well, link, yes, but excerpt, don't post the whole thing. And I don't know if use of "petty" is a crack at me, but somebody's writing is their property, and as a libertarian, I take property rights seriously. It's the ethical thing to do. I wrote to the guy whose piece you posted asking him if it's okay that I leave it up in its entirety or if he'd like me to edit it down and just link to it. The piece belongs to him. He has a right to control its usage. Excerpting is considered fair use -- for purposes of discussion, and falls under free speech rules.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at May 21, 2007 1:33 PM

Since the Innocence Project started, they have now found 200 men were innocent after already being railroded through court and imprisoned, having been falsely accused of rape or molestation. Thank god for DNA.

Here's a recent story where the man is being awarded 5 million dollars!

The money was voted by the legislature.

Nowhere in the story is there any mention of the woman's role as a psychotic liar.

Men lose two ways in this. First, the wrongful conviction of a man based on a woman's word. Second, the taxpayers who are disproprtionately male, have to foot the bill for a woman's mistake.

There is no responsibility for the woman for having taken away most of this man's productive life. There is also no questioning or demanding by the media to get the woman to account for her actions.

Just another day.

Posted by: mark at May 21, 2007 1:39 PM

I wonder whether "Uneasy" has a "controlling" type of personality. Rhrtorically: Does she "need" to hear all of her boyfriend's telephone conversations when he is present.

Whenever my wife or I receive telephone calls on our cell phones, we step away from each other to allow the other person freedom to engage his or her mind in some other activity, e.g., watching television, reading literature, or doing housework. We consider this as simply being courteous to each other.

Whenever she gets a telephone call and cannot leave the area (such as when we are riding in a car), I am usually bored hearing only one half of a conversation while, simultaneosly, not being able to listen to a radio station.

Posted by: Burt at May 26, 2007 1:28 PM

I am a woman and I do not hate men, in fact I am quite fond of the witty, cute and intelligent ones. I was molested when I was nine by a friend of the family, who was sixteen at the time. A few years after that happened, my brother was molested by a different friend of the family. I suggested to my mother at that time that I thought it was weird that this "friend" was always spending time with my brother, I implied that he was probably abusing him sexually. My mother was aghast! She insisted that this "friend" was a Big Brother figure or like a Father figure to my bro. She made me apologize to her for even suggesting something so bizarre. Boy was she sorry later. I was only thirteen when I tried to use my intuition to warn my mother and she dismissed me. I am not trying to insue that the man in question is molesting his ex step daughters, or that if a man or woman shows an interest in a child (who is not their own offspring) it is of a malicious nature, that would be preposterous. I just want to say that maybe the person writing in with that suspicion had experienced the dark side of "those who take an interest", and was trying to show those who hadn't been abused (my mother for example) another possible conclusion.

Posted by: Grace at July 8, 2007 12:53 AM

Grace, I'm so sorry to hear about what happened to you and your brother. And sexual abuse of kids and adolescents, of course, does happen. But, this woman's suggestion, based on zero evidence, is out of line, and, I would guess, is due to the successful campaign by activist "researchers" like Diana Russell to demonize all men as sex criminals until proven otherwise.

An excellent book for recognizing signs of child sexual abuse is Jessica Hendra's "How To Cook Your Daughter."


Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 8, 2007 12:22 PM

technically it wasn't feminists who decided that men were evil, it was queen victoria. she was such a prude that she decided that the mere sight of an uncovered table leg would send men into such a frenzy that they wouldn't be able to keep themselves from raping the nearest female. Hence the invention of the tablecloth.
the thing i think is sad is that feminism started out as a good thing - i wouldn't give up the right to vote for anything, personally, and i really like being able to own my own home instead of having to depend on a man to do it for me. i like being able to have a job, although i do think i should get paid the same wage as a guy doing the same thing. there are a lot of things i'm glad i'm able to do since the - original - feminists. i would even appreciate some of the things a lot of double-standarded (i realize that's not a word) girls are glad they still aren't able to do, like be required to sign up for military service when i turned 18. a long time ago.
there is a lot of truth to the points made that feminists have become man-haters. we've started fighting all the wrong battles. i mean come on, herstory?! give me a break. and a lot of women really don't want to listen to reason, there is a certain power in being a member of the oppressed group - whether that oppression is real or imagined, and in this case i think it's probably a little of both. on both sides. boys aren't doing as well in school as they used to because the education system has focused so much on getting girls to like math and science. it is probably very hard to be a man who likes kids like bradley13 or to work at a female-dominated job without being accused of harassment, and the pendulum of gender equality has swung way too far on the side against the men.
that said, mike is still a condescending, chauvenistic, narcissistic @##hole.

Posted by: kt [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 19, 2007 1:25 AM

i meant mark. sorry mike. seriously takes away from the point to get the wrong name.

Posted by: kt at August 19, 2007 1:30 AM

Dear Amy,

As much as I appreciate your no-nonsense responses, I am prompted to comment on your advice to 'uneasy' regarding the 'every witch way but loose' query, and also the advice here to 'uneasier'

Granted the man is staying involved with the kids from a previous relationship - which is absolutely commendable and most likely in the best interest of the kids - but I think her point, which was missed, is that he is SNEAKING the phone calls. You were right with the fact that men don't sneak broccoli. Why hide it if he is not doing something wrong? Because she complains about it? No. I complain that my husband watches too many sports, but he doesn't hide in the den watching football and turn the channel when I come in. Obviously the kids are important to him, as he continues to nurture a relationship with them and she appears to accept that as she has noted his emotional response to not hearing from them. What she is not accepting is his sneaky behavior, which i do not think she should tolerate. If there is nothing untoward going on he should feel comfortable enough to talk to anyone (children or their mother) in front of her (not always, I'm not saying he shouldn't take calls their calls at work, etc.), and respect the fact that his sneaking hurts her and her "insecurities" and is ruining the trust in their relationship. And if she is important to this man, I would think that he would embrace her being involved (even if it were through secondary listening to one-side of a phone conversation)- so when he hangs up he could say 'did you hear katie got an A on her spelling test?' I think it is vital to be able to value what our significant others care about. Football is not my thing, I roll my eyes over my smut novel at my husband when he channel surfs from sports channel to sports channel, but as boring as it may be, I glance up at the tv and say, 'man that was a great play' because I know he digs it - and he is home with me watching it (most of the time) not "sneaking out" to some sports bar.

Also, in regards to 'uneasiers' concerns, a child is molested every 2 minutes in the US, that is 720 per day, 85% of child molestations occurs by a family member or friend in the home and men are almost 10 times as likely to be the perpetrator with most of the victims being girls between 8 and 15. you said yourself in response to another column:

"As for whether women should expect to be raped in a dodgy part of town, well, admitting it’s a possibility seems a better defense than celebrating your freedom to jog in a short skirt through dark alleys shouting, “Take back the night!” and “No means no!”

I would have to reitterate if he wasn't doing anything wrong he would not be hiding it, and I think she was right to bring up the possibility. it's not her warped thinking that keeps these statistics up - and I was shocked that you dismissed her concern like that and made it sound like some anti-man campaign. I notice that you provided one source of innaccurate statistics, but did not provide any actual statistics (provided by the government and fairly easy to locate). Child molestation happens often enough that it is a legitimate concern - even more so with a "profile fitting" sneaky man.

My daughter and I used to live next to this "great" old couple, that sat on their porch everyday so that when we arrived home they could see us and chat. They seemed super nice and friendly. They always offered to watch my child (as I was a single mom) so I could enjoy a night out, but I noticed their own kids and grandchildren never came around, and had found out thru conversation that they lived close by. I thought that was strange - and didn't let my child go over without me. Later on, after I had moved away, I got on the sexual predator website, and the old man had been convicted of sexually assaulting a minor under 15. I am glad I payed attention, and didn't deem myself a man-bashing, warped thinking feminist. Just an average mom who chooses not to stick her head in the sand.

Posted by: Dena at August 20, 2007 1:54 PM

First of all, I don't know where you get your child molestation stats and I don't trust stats I haven't read the methodology on.

As far as this comment goes:

"Why hide it if he is not doing something wrong? Because she complains about it? "

I'm so sorry you don't seem to understand men very well, but no guy wants harranging and recriminations because he talks to his kids. I'm not molesting any children and guess what, I'm not going to have phone conversations in front of my boyfriend, because it changes the nature of the conversation, no matter how immaterial or inane it is.

I see that you're one of those with a mad lust for stats. Statistics on this are notoriously flawed, and why do we need them at all. Child sexual abuse happens, perps are women and men, let's watch for the signs. The fact that a man wishes to have a relationship with his step kids without some jealous bitch hanging over him is not a sign that he's a molester. The fact that you seem to think it may be suggests that you're the sick one.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at August 20, 2007 8:08 PM

No Amy - I am not the sick one - and it has taken years of therapy after being molested by MY step father for me to be able to say that.

I was not trying to imply that this man was molesting these kids. What I was trying to point out is that the sneaky behavior is not kosher and it invokes suspicion (he is not just talking to the kids but their mom too). And as for your comment:

"because it changes the nature of the conversation, no matter how immaterial or inane it is"

I would not care if I was sitting next to the Pope on the bus, it wouldn't change the way that I speak to my child.

Not to mention that I know how upset my (very insecure) husband would be if I snuck around to talk to my daughters' father. So I make it a point to answer his (df) phone calls in front of him (dh). This has promoted a healthy friendly relationship between all of us - and that is what is best for my child. (and my husband - he's not jealous, and me - i am not harassed).

From personal experience my husband, (several years ago) made phone calls to his ex (with whom he shared no children). He claimed they were "just friends" - but he never would talk to her in front of me, or would hang up quickly when I came in. When I would point that out, he would call me insecure and say I jealous for no reason, and I began to believe that I was (I'm sure you would have agreed). Then the idiot inadvertantly taped, with his cell phone, the middle of a conversation of theirs that was absolutely not platonic (she lived 3000 miles away) - that I happened across as I was leaving a love voice note on his phone. I have learned that if there is nothing to hide men do not sneak.

Because of my past, and the adversities that I knew I would have to overcome, I have made it a point to educate myself about men and healthy relationships. From reading, everything and anything (including a subscription to maxim so I could see things from their point of view), taking extra communications and psychology courses in college, asking questions, observing, and taking advice from other educated women, such as yourself. The most notable conclusions that I have come to regarding the elusive male:

2) Looking at boobs and watching sports is part of their diet
3) It's better to let them fix the sink and feel manly, even though you know could have done it better yourself ... yesterday. ;)

What offended me most about this is how you tried to make uneasier, and now me, sound like we are sick because we said molestation was AN OPTION.

I don't have a mad lust for stats (which I got from child protective services, and the methodology was from cps reports that were investigated). I don't need statistics for me to be concerned about unwarranted secrecy by an adult in a power position to a young child, regardless of gender. You want to "watch for the signs", and I say, why wait for the damage to be done. Because as far as I know, there are no blinking red lights over pedophiles heads saying don't let your kids play here. If it weren't for the unorthodox nature of the phone calls, the thought would never have crossed my mind and I would have said for "uneasy" to quit being a whiny bitch, and be happy that she found a man who takes his responsibilities seriously.

Posted by: dena [TypeKey Profile Page] at August 21, 2007 11:17 AM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)