A Seriously Sick Attitude About Men
Lenore Skenazy writes in the WSJ about some seriously disgusting paranoia about men -- the attitude that if you're male, you're a pedophile until proven otherwise:
Consider the Iowa daycare center where Nichole Adkins works. The one male aide employed there, she told me in an interview, is not allowed to change diapers. "In fact," Ms. Adkins said, "he has been asked to leave the classroom when diapering was happening."Now, a guy turned on by diaper changes has got to be even rarer than a guy turned on by Sponge Bob. But "Worst-First" thinking means suspecting the motives of any man who chooses to work around kids.
Maybe the daycare center felt it had to be extra cautious, to avoid lawsuits. But regular folk are suspicious, too. Last February, a woman followed a man around at a store berating him for clutching a pile of girls' panties. "I can't believe this! You're disgusting. This is a public place, you pervert!" she said--until the guy, who posted about the episode on a website, fished out his ID. He was a clerk restocking the underwear department.
...In England in 2006, BBC News reported the story of a bricklayer who spotted a toddler at the side of the road. As he later testified at a hearing, he didn't stop to help for fear he'd be accused of trying to abduct her. You know: A man driving around with a little girl in his car? She ended up at a pond and drowned.
We think we're protecting our kids by treating all men as potential predators. But that's not a society that's safe. Just sick.
Here's one from the comments:
Cart Pierson wrote: I am a single father with three teenage children. Last fall, on my way home from work, I saw my daughter walking on the sidewalk a block away from our home. She was walking in a residential area on the way to a local store. I pulled my truck beside her on the side of the road to talk for a few minutes and see if she wanted a ride. Since it was a nice day she decided to walk but talked with me for a few minutes. During the less than five minutes I spent talking with her, no less than three cars with woman driving stopped. When I told one woman that I was talking with my daughter and my daughter told her I was her father, she pulled her car forward 100 yards and stayed there the whole time. A few minutes later the police showed up. Again, with doubt not only for me saying I was her father but for my daughter as well.On the one hand I appreciate the vigilance, on the other, when someone sees a young girl laughing and talking with someone on the side of the road with no sign of danger, is their no filter that overides the brain's worst sentiments.
One last point, not one person apologized and to a person, each one individually looked on with disbelief even when set straight. This leads me to another, related point. People appear to be so isolated and fearful in general, that it is difficult for them to determine what is dangerous and what is not. If they would get out more, they may be able to tell the difference. This of course is not an absolute but come on, when virtually every situation is viewed through a filter of perecieved deviance where does that leave us?
Cartman- Denver
Cartman's truck probably had something to do with it. If he had been driving some SWPL-type vehicle they might have believed him.
Turtle noneck at January 13, 2011 3:17 AM
Why is that, Turtle? Ted Bundy drove a beat up old VW Bug, I saw it in a museum in DC.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/18/AR2010021803532.html
Looked totally innocuous, I never would have given that car a second look except in a "Oh, poor thing" kind of way. Not all pedo's drive panel vans.
This is just more of the feminist "All men are rapists" BS. If I were the guy who saved those kids from the burning car, I would have thrown the old biddy back in.
Kat at January 13, 2011 5:07 AM
"In England in 2006, BBC News reported the story of a bricklayer who spotted a toddler at the side of the road. As he later testified at a hearing, he didn't stop to help for fear he'd be accused of trying to abduct her."
Get over your fear, which is about as hysterical as the concern that every man in part of the .000001% that would actually abduct and assault a small child. Help the toddler, guys.
Spartee at January 13, 2011 6:23 AM
This is such a sharp contrast to the way people respond to actual abuse. People can publicly humiliate and physically abuse children and no-one will want to 'get involved', but the same people suddenly become both brave and self-righteous when they imagine abuse.
Redblues at January 13, 2011 6:48 AM
That is so sad, but true. Look at the story of Zahra Baker, who by all accounts was abused by her stepmother, but no one intervened.
http://tinyurl.com/35az98a
Every time I see a story like this it breaks my heart. I want to go all Clint Eastwood on these fucks, stick a 44 magnum in there face and ask if they feel lucky......
Kat at January 13, 2011 6:58 AM
These men need to stand up straight, calmly look these people in the eye, and say, "What on earth is wrong with you? What kind of sick, perverted person are you?"
damaged justice at January 13, 2011 7:06 AM
Help the toddler, guys.
No.
Not if the only "thanks" I get is to be berated, interrogated, and possibly charged with a crime. I don't need that level of crap in my life.
Keep better track of your kids.
I R A Darth Aggie at January 13, 2011 7:30 AM
Men guilty until proven innocent. Once proven innocent, were still not sure and look at them with a raised eyebrow.
David M. at January 13, 2011 7:34 AM
Hah, help the toddler? What are you, a kiddie diddler? Why do you want to help toddlers? PERV!
Yeah, listening to that insanity is what you face if you try to help. In most circumstances its not worth the potential hassle.
Some sad comments on that article there. That AJ Meslac guy is the typical white knight buffoon.
Sio at January 13, 2011 7:38 AM
Spartee says:
"Get over your fear, which is about as hysterical as the concern that every man in part of the .000001% that would actually abduct and assault a small child. Help the toddler, guys."
Did you actually read the article that was linked to here?
If not allow me to add the opening paragraph:
"Last week, the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, Timothy Murray, noticed smoke coming out of a minivan in his hometown of Worcester. He raced over and pulled out two small children, moments before the van's tire exploded into flames. At which point, according to the AP account, the kids' grandmother, who had been driving, nearly punched our hero in the face."
This isn't some paranoia that men are feeling about this issue. This guy in the above paragraph "got over his fear" and helped some trapped children only to be branded a kidnapper by the grandmother.
Men will feel more comfortable helping random strangers in danger when those efforts are rewarded with sincere gratitude instead of physical threats and potential incarceration.
Another incident that wasn't included in this article was a recent one were I believe several men were arrested for playing chess at a public park.
Society has made a very obvious claim that men don't belong anywhere near children. You don't get to then hold men ethically responsible if they adhere to societies wishes.
Reality at January 13, 2011 7:45 AM
This behavior is basically an expression of women's resentment towards men. It's a way for women to exert control over men, and to drive them away from children. Though I don't think that these motives are conscious for most women.
The same type, and pattern, of behavior was evident with the rise of the rape culture movement in the 90's, which was primarily used as a socially sanctioned vehicle to degrade men and to restrict or deny their civil rights.
Both are expressions of Hate ideology.
The comment above, regarding actual abuse, is illustrative. If the motivation for such oppressive policing of male behavior were prevention, why is there not a similar emphasis on physical abuse and neglect. Why are the perpetrators of abuse always cast as male when they are predominately female? And why is child molestation, and rape, by females tolerated and even extolled by women?
I am not saying that all women hate men, or anything that extreme. But I do think that we need to be willing to confront the manifestations of female chauvinism, like we have male chauvinism.
snoopy at January 13, 2011 7:56 AM
It's a shame that everyone is so damn paranoid nowadays that they're afraid to help a kid in need, thanks to all the overzealous loons who see every genuinely helpful man (or woman, for that matter) as a potential molester. I wonder how many real molesters get away with that while some poor decent guy gets crucified for trying to be a Good Samaritan? As a mom, whenever I see a young child alone on the street or in a mall or store, etc., I always keep an eye on the kid until his/her parent or caretaker shows up. I've never had to intervene, but I would if it became necessary.
DorianTB at January 13, 2011 8:16 AM
"Get over your fear, which is about as hysterical as the concern that every man in part of the .000001% that would actually abduct and assault a small child. Help the toddler, guys."
Not if you have your own toddler that is entitled to having his father with him while he's grwoing up. Your responsibilities comes first,Spatee, and that is to your own child first, not someone else's.
"These men need to stand up straight, calmly look these people in the eye, and say, "What on earth is wrong with you? What kind of sick, perverted person are you?"
That is the right answer, every time. These women are sexualizing these children in their own minds. They truly are perverts.
Oh, I see Snoopy got there first. Concur with everything he/she said. It's really about controlling men. It's a really dengenrate form of mommy blocking.
Jim at January 13, 2011 8:48 AM
There seems to be a general pattern in our society of people (particularly women)) over reacting to faux threats, such as men in the park talking to children) and under reacting or not reacting at all to real ones. I suggest that most women can sense when a man is a real threat and would not come within 50 feet of anyone that looked truly dangerous, but since they are unwilling to take real risk in confronting those types of people, they instead result to berating and chastising men who probably are unlikely to knock their teeth down their throat. (Kind of like the Chihuahua barking menacingly from behind the fence at the Rottweiler passing by.) You see this also with journalists who will go after Christians, but won't go after Muslims because they know a real threat when they see one, but are too hypocritical to admit that they have a double standard precisely because of the risk factor.
My husband used to do voluntary tutoring in math but gave it up about 15 years ago when it because clear that some sort of accusation was going to be made eventually against someone even though all the tutoring took place in an open library. It was just too dangerous to be worth the effort for a middle class professional to do that sort of thing. No good deed goes unpunished.
Isabel1130 at January 13, 2011 9:00 AM
I wonder whether there may be an instinctual aspect to all this. Perhaps women naturally perceive males as a threat to children and so will seek to keep them away from kids. The fear of molestation is just their way of rationalizing this impulse.
I've seen something similar with friends who've had kids. The moms will cut off the couple's contact with male friends, especially single guys. She'll only want to socialize with women or other couples. This is something that alienates a lot of dads from their friends over time, because their wives become very controlling about who can come to the house, who they can talk to etc..
guest at January 13, 2011 9:09 AM
I used to teach martial arts. We were trusted with many young children every week. We taught them good skills. They did well; I was very proud when they competed.
I wouldn't go back today. Far too dangerous.
2 years ago I lived next to a nice creekside walking path. It ran through a small park. At the park was a jungle gym. Moms were often there with their kids in the afternoons.
Not once did I go by there (the path gets within 50 feet of the gym) and some mom didn't either grab her child or give me a look of vitriol.
One time a little boy's ball rolled past me. The boy came running after it. I stopped where I was, about 8 feet from the kid, and let him retrieve his ball. He smiled and waved at me. I smiled back.
His mother ran up to me and directly accused me of 'trying to abduct' her child.
This is what has happened, folks. This is why we men are walking away.
Chris at January 13, 2011 9:17 AM
This behavior is basically an expression of women's resentment towards men.
It's more complicated than that. I have male friends who overreact to men being near their children, as well. One friend threatened to break the camera of a guy who was taking pictures in the park and might have gotten a shot of his daughter. He refused to let the guy leave unless he looked through the photos on his camera.
I wonder whether there may be an instinctual aspect to all this.
It just wasn't like this when I was a kid. My parents had a single male tenant who used to take me on outings all the time alone. He was a great guy, and they were totally comfortable with him.
We're so insulated from each other now. The news tells us we should be afraid of everything and everyone, and we don't actually know the people who live near us. We socialize almost entirely with people who think like we do, so we are rarely exposed to different people, either. Perhaps the instinctual part comes into play in that we are so estranged from other that we perceive everyone as "other."
MonicaP at January 13, 2011 9:21 AM
His mother ran up to me and directly accused me of 'trying to abduct' her child.
That's a good example of what Isabel referred to - if she really thought you were a threat, she'd have taken the child, gotten away from you, and contacted the police. Otherwise she just let a child molester get away.
lilo at January 13, 2011 9:30 AM
I have male friends who overreact to men being near their children, as well.
I'm sure that happens, but from what I've seen it's almost always women overreacting. Their husbands are the ones who'll try to get them to be rational. This issue sets women off in a way that it doesn't with men.
guest at January 13, 2011 9:36 AM
I have to wonder how much of this is posturing on the part of mothers. "Look at me! I'm a mama grizzly who will do anything to protect her child!" It's nice when there was no real threat in the first place.
MonicaP at January 13, 2011 9:41 AM
Make no mistake about it, I am truly paranoid.
I regularly jog in my neighborhood and, for a change of scenery, in other areas. When I notice children outside, I either move to the other side of the street or turn around and take another street. I not only do not trust the adults but I don't trust the kids either.
As a member of the most hated racial/gender group on the planet -- white male -- I gotta be careful.
Phocion Timon at January 13, 2011 9:49 AM
The whole issue is really weird. One huge question is why men, collectively, put up with this. Look at Amy's post - isn't this an absolutely clear-cut basis for a discrimination suit? The same goes for any male seeking a job in a child-care center, who is not hired because of his gender.
"Oh, but only pedo's would..."
Exactly! All those women must be pedos...
a_random_guy at January 13, 2011 9:53 AM
There is more hysteria & indoctrination - "all men are child molesters/rapists" - at work here than instinct.
When the men on the Titanic knew the ship was doomed, they gathered the women & children into the available lifeboats, then put on their best suits, lit their cigars, and sat back to die like gentlemen. They were following their instincts. And the women of the time were profoundly grateful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titanic_Memorial_(Washington,_D.C.)
I don't believe that any of these men would have ever hesitated to help a woman or child in distress, or that any of the women who erected that memorial would have been anything but grateful, or that any of the evil, hysterical hags in this article realize what society has lost because of the likes of them.
Martin at January 13, 2011 9:54 AM
This story really is upsetting. Unfortunately our society now acts as if there's some secret "League of Pedophiles" having meetings on how to abduct the children of the world while maniacally laughing like Lex Luthor. Apparently they're all busy trolling Facebook hoping to find that elusive picture of a 5-year-old's birthday party. Of course none of us wants to see any child fall victim to a predator. The idea is horrifying. But the knee-jerk reaction to every conversation involving children is "What about PEDOPHILES???" What about them? We can teach our kids to be mindful of danger without scaring them to death.
On a separate note, I hope we're just being facetious about ignoring the toddler on the side of the road. When I see a wandering or crying child alone in the mall or outside, I'll stop and look for the parents, and then a security guard if need be. I'd rather risk the wrath of some screaming mimi, than know that something horrible happened because I didn't try to help.
JonnyT at January 13, 2011 9:58 AM
OMG. Just reading some of these comments makes me so sad. It's getting to be beyond unreasonable, that men can't even be normal men anymore. All three of my brothers love kids, and have always interacted with kids in a friendly and respectful manner. They all have kids themselves, and 2 of them coach little league baseball and soccer, and haven't had any problems that I've ever heard of, thank the gods. Chris, I was especially sad to read your post. I don't understand that mindset. I have 2 daughters myself. BF has a good friend who regularly visits with us, and I trust him around my girls. He's a decent guy. Most guys that I know are pretty decent and would never hurt a child, ANY child. That any man is vilified in this manner without any proof whatsoever is galling.
These men need to stand up straight, calmly look these people in the eye, and say, "What on earth is wrong with you? What kind of sick, perverted person are you?"
Yes, this. As often as necessary. And how said that it even IS necessary.
Flynne at January 13, 2011 10:02 AM
"I'd rather risk the wrath of some screaming mimi, than know that something horrible happened because I didn't try to help."
The problem is it's the wrath of the state. That screaming mimi can decide you've stolen the child or did something else nefarious. The police department will not believe you. The district attorney will look for the opportunity to put a bad man who hurts children away and improve his share of the female vote in the next election. The media will look luridly into your life and try to find anyone you know who can say, "That guy -- he was always pervy."
If you are married, you can look forward to a no-fault divorce from your wife, who can then use this as reason to deny you custody. The government can brand you as a sex offender, and then you'll be denied housing and work.
That screaming mimi can destroy your life, and she'll do it full of self-righteous anger and tell her friends that she protected her children from that evil man. And then the imprint of that evil man idea will continue generation to generation.
Your own obligations to your current responsibilities or even your own future outweigh any obligation to helping somebody else's child. America's women by and large have the society they want. America's women (or those that speak for them!) have made it clear over 40 years that every one of those children is a wanted child. Let the mother care for her own property or bear the consequences -- why risk life, honor, or the livelihood of those you depend on because somebody tells you that you're supposed to do the honorable thing? America and the west must fix its own sickness that thinks men are evil first; we don't need martyrs.
Mr Green Man at January 13, 2011 10:03 AM
To add some balance to this, I'd like to mention another friend, a white male second-grade teacher who has never experienced any of these problems. Most men go through their whole lives without every being arrested for child molestation.
As a member of the most hated racial/gender group on the planet -- white male
Dude, seriously. You're putting having to avoid kids near the park on par with, say, ethnic cleansing in Bosnia? Talk about persecution complex.
Yes, this stuff sucks and we need to knock it off. No, this is not like running from rape gangs in Darfur.
MonicaP at January 13, 2011 10:03 AM
To be fair to the paranoid, sexual abuse is the one category of child abuse in which men are the primary perpetrators. Realistically, though, if your child is going to be fondled or raped by a man, it's almost certain to be by the mother's new lover, not their biological father and not some stranger.
Tyler at January 13, 2011 10:05 AM
And, once you've seen the snarl of the American Wommon for something much more trivial like opening a door for her in the wrong area, you'll get over the romantic notion that you should run to the rescue. You're not going to get praised -- no good deed will go unpunished if you're going to help somebody else's child.
Mr Green Man at January 13, 2011 10:06 AM
Oh c'mon, Mr. Green Man. Not ALL of us are like that.
Flynne at January 13, 2011 10:13 AM
Not ALL of us are like that.
In fact, most of us aren't like that. Some women are jerks.
MonicaP at January 13, 2011 10:26 AM
And all it takes is one jerk to fuck it up for everyone.
This is the same problem the right have had for decades - nobody defends themselves from the slander because they think it's utter nonsense.
Well, enough people believe that nonsense now that they're STILL trying to blame Palin for the death of a 9 year old in Arizona.
And enough people bought into the gender feminist bilge that all men are predators that we have this.
Go ahead, Monica - whip out that quote you saved. Use the whole thing.
And tell me that isn't the view of the preponderance of the shrieking harridans. To listen to these bitches talk, you'd think that women were the only ones to evolve past the Paleolithic.
brian at January 13, 2011 10:42 AM
Two words:
Duke Lacrosse
hadsil at January 13, 2011 10:58 AM
And remember folks. These are some of the very same people that will then complain that men aren't around in their kids lives.
Danny at January 13, 2011 11:00 AM
" You're not going to get praised -- no good deed will go unpunished if you're going to help somebody else's child."
Absurd.
Spartee at January 13, 2011 11:01 AM
Two words:
Duke Lacrosse
Helping a lost child... paying a strange woman to come to your home, take her clothes and dance around. Yeah, that's the same thing. Six of one, half a dozen of another.
JonnyT at January 13, 2011 11:29 AM
The irony is that some women justify their hysteria as a means of preventing child abuse. Cutting children off from all contact with men & filling their heads with paranoia about every man in sight is a form of child abuse in itself.
Martin at January 13, 2011 11:35 AM
Not that this doesn't remain a real problem, but I thought this was a key bit of additional information regarding the story of the grandmother and the burning van. In the comments section one poster wondered why the grandmother left the children unattended in the first place. The grandmother replied with an explanation that helps shed some light on her initial reaction that the rescuer was a threat. Here's her response:
"Grandmother of kids
I was on the passenger side of the van getting a friend whom I was taking shopping. The van was parked on the sidewalk up against her porch. When I turned around to get back in the van Murray was running up to the van to rip open the door. I yelled at him to get away from the van, I thought he was some criminal trying to rip off he van with the kids in it — he yelled the van is on fire — it was the wheel on the drivers side that was starting to flame."
Here's the link to the story and the comments section:
http://boston.cbslocal.com/2011/01/05/tim-murray-responds-to-a-minivan-with-a-tire-fire/
JonnyT at January 13, 2011 12:24 PM
I'm seeing a lot of people -- even left-leaners -- call bullshit on the whole idea that this is Palin's fault.
And all it takes is one jerk to fuck it up for everyone.
There will always be that one jerk to fuck it up for everyone. Always and everywhere, about everything. There are men who think being a husband gives them the right to smack their wives around. I disregard those assholes instead of assuming 99.9% of the population feels that way.
If you don't help the toddler, you'll have to explain in a courtroom why you let her drown, so take your pick.
MonicaP at January 13, 2011 12:27 PM
This reminds me of a somewhat similar experience I had back in '94. Working part-time at the local Wal-Mart, I was assigned to the menswear area since I had previously worked at a men's suit store. On occasion my job would entail me having to go to the common dressing room area (for both genders), located in ladies clothing, to get new hangers, etc. for the clothing. Evidently some customers did not like the idea of a man being around the changing room, so I was informed that to get new hangers, etc. I would have to go find one of the female employees and have her go get the items I needed. Never mind the fact that female employees could be there to assist male customers. Thought about making a point of that obvious lack of logic but realized trying to argue w/ stupidity is pointless.
Keith at January 13, 2011 12:31 PM
"If you don't help the toddler, you'll have to explain in a courtroom why you let her drown, so take your pick."
Not true, most duty to aid laws have been found unconstitutional. You have no affirmative duty to come to someone's aid, period. If you did, they would get you coming and going, legally liable for not trying to help someone, and also legally liable for hurting someone in the process of trying to help them. This changed after a number of people who were injured in auto accidents, sued their rescuers and won because people with back and neck injuries had been pulled out of vehicles, exacerbating their injuries. This is why if you come on an accident, and you are a prudent person, your actions should be to call 911, nothing more. The trained paramedics that respond are protected by sovereign immunity and are much harder to sue. Also, along that line, the police have no duty to protect you either. They are only there to clean up the mess and arrest the suspects, not to prevent crime, so says the Supreme Court.
Isabel1130 at January 13, 2011 12:44 PM
Yes, this stuff sucks and we need to knock it off. No, this is not like running from rape gangs in Darfur.
Posted by: MonicaP at January 13, 2011 10:03 AM
We live in a society that openly makes prison rape jokes and the lowest of the low among criminals is the rapist/molestor. I'm not seeing a huge difference.
Sio at January 13, 2011 12:49 PM
I know it's gotten bad when my husband, a middle school teacher, isn't even comfortable talking about the dress code with his female students. He asks the female teacher on his team to do it for him.
What I find increasingly annoying about the "stranger danger" lesson that paranoid parents are teaching their kids is that it's completely based on fear and not facts. It's usually not a stranger at all thats actually harming kids. In MOST cases of abduction, molestation, and sexual abuse, the perpetrator is someone known to the child. In fact, it's usually the parent themselves committing the abuse but in the other instances it's usually someone, a family member or a friend, the parents trusted enough to leave alone with their kid. How many articles and stories have we read where the parents said, "We never thought he/she would do anything like that" or "If I'd known I'd never have left Suzie alone with him" or "He/She was always so good with Johnny. We never suspected" or some other variation of "We trusted them"? Countless.
The instances of strangers abducting/molesting kids are sensationalized in the press because they are so rare. And because that same story gets so much coverage, (Elizabeth Smart for instance) those are the ones that stick in peoples minds and create the "strange men around children" paranoia. (Note how the WOMAN who HELPED the kidnapper in the Smart case is hardly ever talked about by the way). If the news covered the stories of abuse done to kids by people they actually knew they'd have to create a 24 hour station just for that purpose. Plus, on shows like Law and Order SVU, child molestaters are often portrayed as strange (and yes usually white) men. Overprotective paranoid parents, accept these fictional stories as fact and treat the world like it's one big tv show with bad guys lurking around every corner and pervs using playground for their personal kiddie porn photo shop.
There are bad people everywhere, male and female. You can't treat every person you encounter as if they are out to harm you and your child. Besides, real kidnappers are likely much sneakier than that. If someone really wants to abduct your child, I would think they aren't going to be stupid enough to attempt it with you standing RIGHT THERE.
Sabrina at January 13, 2011 1:00 PM
"As a member of the most hated racial/gender group on the planet -- white male -- I gotta be careful."
No, rest assured that as a black male you'd have it much worse. You'd probably get the cops called on you for just jogging in a suburban neighborhood regardless of whether children are playing outside.
Shannon at January 13, 2011 1:21 PM
>>When the men on the Titanic knew the ship was doomed, they gathered the women & children into the available lifeboats, then put on their best suits, lit their cigars, and sat back to die like gentlemen. They were following their instincts.
Martin,
I know what you mean, but it was a lot more complicated than that.
I'm currently reading (and hugely enjoying) Steven Biel's highly regarded cultural history of the Titanic disaster "Down With the Old Canoe..." (published in 1996).
The final figures showed that "94 % of the first-cabin women and children were saved, compared with 81% in the second cabin and 47 % in steerage. Of the first cabin men, 31 % survived, compared with ten % in second class and 14 % in steerage."
The truth was far more fascinating than your pretty synopsis suggests.
Jody Tresidder at January 13, 2011 2:13 PM
I do think that this is a phenomenon that's being driven mostly by women. Not that men aren't concerned about child molesters, but it's mostly women who seem to take it to extremes.
For instance, at my daughter's gymnastics studio a few years ago a group of mothers got upset because they thought that the girls were too vulnerable to pedophiles. They'd found some websites where men were posting pictures of young girls, and a lot of them were of girls in gymnastics. So their fears weren't totally unfounded. But they over reacted and tried to get the owners of the studio to ban men from the facility. They didn't want men to be able to stay in the building during the classes, or events, or to even enter the building to pick up their girls. We'd have to wait in the parking lot.
When I confronted a few of the women about this, their attitude was basically 'fuck you very much, you deserve it because men are perverts'. It was evident that they didn't have any reasonable justification for keeping men out, it just made them more comfortable not having us around. In the end, the owners did nothing because they realized that too many of the girls would be pulled out of the program.
Maurice at January 13, 2011 2:30 PM
"To be fair to the paranoid, sexual abuse is the one category of child abuse in which men are the primary perpetrators. "
That's the standard myth Tyler. There are hundreds of thousands of male child molestation and rape victinms who will tell yuou you are full of shit.
Ask this guy, for example
http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/
"When I confronted a few of the women about this, their attitude was basically 'fuck you very much, you deserve it because men are perverts'. "
Bad, bad precedent. That can be turned around into just a justification for rape.
Jim at January 13, 2011 2:44 PM
Get over your fear, which is about as hysterical as the concern that every man in part of the .000001% that would actually abduct and assault a small child. Help the toddler, guys.
Posted by: Spartee
Spartee are you at all fimmillair with that case?
The day care center NEVER CALEED THE COPS,
the went out looking for themselves,
while wandering the neihborhood
THEY LIED TO THE PARENTS when they happened across them,
afer about an hour or so when the parents found out what had happened they called the cops themselves
becuase THE DAYCARE CENTER STILL REFUDSED TO CALL THE COPS
Now given how many times the daycare people lied and failed to do their duty can you really think they wouldnt have jumped at the chance to pin the girls disappearce on whomever picked her up?
lujlp at January 13, 2011 3:12 PM
To be fair to the paranoid, sexual abuse is the one category of child abuse in which men are the primary perpetrators. Posted by: Tyler
You got numbers tyler, becuase the last time we had this topic up for discussion people posted links to the US justice deptment which showed women were primarily the asbusers of children
lujlp at January 13, 2011 3:22 PM
You're not going to get praised -- no good deed will go unpunished if you're going to help somebody else's child.
Posted by: Mr Green Man
Absurd.
Posted by: Spartee
Recall that guy(think it was in Illinois) who slammed on his brakes to avoid running over a girl with his car, got out, took her by the hand and walked her off the street only to become a convicted child molester for his trouble?
lujlp at January 13, 2011 3:30 PM
"No, rest assured that as a black male you'd have it much worse. You'd probably get the cops called on you for just jogging in a suburban neighborhood regardless of whether children are playing outside."
Your point is taken. But from a legal standpoint, the poster you're responding to (can't find it right now), had a point too. The question was asked about whether the male employee at the day care could sue for discrimination. The answer is no -- both the law and its interpretation by the courts make it absolutely clear that we, as members of a non-preferred class, are not protected by anti-discrimination or sexual harassment laws.
Cousin Dave at January 13, 2011 3:42 PM
"No, rest assured that as a black male you'd have it much worse. You'd probably get the cops called on you for just jogging in a suburban neighborhood regardless of whether children are playing outside."
The difference here, Shannon, is that hatred of white men is politically motivated, a.k.a, political correctness. True racism is based upon stupidity, hatred, ignorance, and other base emotions with a historical platform. This hatred of white man is new and strictly political, similar to the Nazi's hatred of Jews.
Which brings up a question: how many black men are being accused of child molestation merely for being a male? I can only recall white men being branded thusly in the news. (If lots of "minority" men are being accused, but not being reported in the news, this furthers my theory of political correctness.)
Phocion Timon at January 13, 2011 3:50 PM
I knew about the huge differences in survival rates among the different classes, Jody. But the numbers emphasize my point - most men of all social classes spontaneously put women & chidren ahead of themselves (and their women did not take this sacrifice for granted). Keep in mind that it was much harder for anyone to make it out alive from steerage in the bowels of the ship. I'm glad the rigid class structure of that era is gone. But if the ghosts of any Titanic passengers are hovering over us, I still think they would be dismayed over what Skenazy describes.
Martin at January 13, 2011 5:35 PM
@Jim:
I am not saying that men are the SOLE perpetrators of sexual abuse, only that according the DoJ/CDC statistics women lead men in all categories of neglect and abuse, except sexual. I am fulling willing to entertain the notion that woman-on-boy sexual abuse is under-reported or misclassified or both, but that's for another day.
My larger point was that boys and girls aren't getting raped and molested by strange men at the park. It's most likely to be mommy's boyfriend or husband---the new man that she's brought into her kid's life.
Stranger danger is BULLSHIT. Statistically speaking, the best way for women to stop their kids getting diddled is to stay married to their father.
Because these women won't stay with their perfectly good non-abusive husbands, they're actually making it more likely that their kids will get molested.
Tyler at January 13, 2011 8:07 PM
I found the info, below, from an article published in 2001. The article cites and links to its sources.
"Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively), but those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males (80 to 90% by males versus 14 to 15% by females).
Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%), while those who had been physically abused by other parents or parent- substitutes were much more likely to have been abused by their fathers or father-substitutes (90% by their fathers versus 19% by their mothers).
On the whole, children are somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males: 65 percent of the maltreated children had been maltreated by a female, whereas 54 percent had been maltreated by a male.
This last statistic is unfair because it includes child neglect, in which mothers are named at rates that are absurd given that women accused of child neglect are almost always single mothers. The fathers who abandon their children are almost never convicted of child neglect. Still, the statistic shows the current state of affairs."
Taken from:
http://www.findcounseling.com/journal/child-abuse/abusers.html
Michelle at January 13, 2011 8:30 PM
"Because these women won't stay with their perfectly good non-abusive husbands, they're actually making it more likely that their kids will get molested." ~Tyler
What suggests the men who left their children did so unwillingly?
In what percentage of divorces initiated by women, were the men not abusive?
How does the rate of abuse of children whose parents are married differ from those whose parents are divorced?
Please cite a credible source.
...I took the quotes below from
http://www.childhelp.org/stories/
"My father used his "protection" from my mother's physical abuse to sexually abuse me. He started molesting me when I was 7 years old." ~Kathie
"My father was abusive for as far back as I can remember. When he would come home from work he would beat my mother, who was a stay-at-home mom with 5 kids." ~ Rose
"As my parents got divorced my mother introduced us to her boyfriend at the time. [...] This man turned out to be a child molester." ~Carolina
"I was about six years old when my oldest brother got mad [...] But from that point on he sexually abused me day in and day out." ~Valicity
"I was born to a drug addicted and alcoholic father and a dependant workaholic mother who knew no different then life with my dad. There were three kids. Our parents were young. My mother and I were beaten by my dad my whole life. When I was eight and a half I got my period (something I had no knowledge of). My father found out and told me I was now a women and I was to do what real women do. Which was to have sex and do all the sexual favors adult women do." ~Lindsey
There are more stories. It goes on.
Michelle at January 13, 2011 9:15 PM
Michelle,
That is some very interesting information. I always like when facts are injected into a discussion. What I find most interesting though about what you have quoted is the authors opinions about the statistics which suggest something rather strange about the way the author thinks.
In particular, the treatment of these two statements are not logically consistent:
"those abused by other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, nonparental perpetrators were much more likely to be abused by males"
and
"On the whole, children are somewhat more likely to be maltreated by female perpetrators than by males"
With regard to the second of these statements the author states:
"This last statistic is unfair because it includes child neglect, in which mothers are named at rates that are absurd given that women accused of child neglect are almost always single mothers."
So according to this author, it is unfair to state that children are somewhat more likely to be abused by women because by and large more women are single parents. Yet at the same time, this author considers it to be completely fair to say that of non-biological parents, men are responsible for most abuse.
The problem here is that these two statistics should have a strong relationship with one another. Therefore if one is fair then both statistics are fair, and if one is unfair then both would be unfair.
After all, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the vast majority of non-biological parental relationships would be generated by the parent who has primary custody?
Since most single parents are women, most “other parents, parent-substitutes, or other, no parental perpetrators” are bound to be men who become romantically involved with these single mothers.
Yet the author finds cause to generate excuses to reduce the guilt of the women but does not seek to do the same for the men.
If more children were raised by single fathers one should simultaneously expect increased rates of abuse by those fathers coupled with increased rates of abuse by women those men become romantically involved with.
The two issues are related, but apparently the author doesn’t acknowledge this.
Reality at January 13, 2011 9:23 PM
I'm old enough to have seen the CSA (Child Sexual Abuse) witch hunt disasters (Mcmartin and personal friends) that had their lives and careers ruined in the '80s. Between the false memories and witch hunt -- what was believed and what the truth were totally at odds.
Now, fifteen to twenty years later, I don't want to have kids, be around kids without another adult, etc.
My ex-gf has a sweet daughter and two wonderful sons. I didn't want to be around them for the first year from the mixed messages of a newly single mother and the BF (plus other reasons). But I also was worried about the CSA angle. Later I would babysit the kids while she went to do various tasks. The father wasn't attentive. The boys would curl up next to me and I would rub the daughter's feet. It was almost a puppy pile. ;-)
Somewhere in there Amy published the requirement for parents to have a background check to come to their child's play at school. (Can't find the reference in the Goddess blog.) I mentioned it to the ex-GF -- she was along the lines of "That could be reasonable." Meanwhile she was leaving her kids with me with no background check and a slight "allergic" reaction to kids.
She never caught the dichotomy that she was trusting me with her kids -- but the possibility of a molester at a Christmas play in elementary school would be able to tackle her kid and have his way with him/her.
One of the sad things when we broke up. The kids would spontaneously run up and hug me when I came over. That was so nice. It changed my general attitude. But I will CYA with a child I don't know to this day.
Jim P. at January 13, 2011 9:26 PM
When women do sexually abuse they usually target children. One study from 2000 found that in daycare settings 60% of the children who were molested were molestd by women. Another study looking at juvenile correctional facilities found approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff.
If you look at teachers 2 studies found - In studies that ask students about offenders, sex differences are less than in adult reports. The 2000 AAUW data indicate that 57.2 percent of all students report a male offender and 42.4 percent a female offender with the Cameron et al. study reporting nearly identical proportions as the 2000 AAUW data (57 percent male offenders vs. 43 percent female offenders)
Other studies have found - In a study of 17,337 survivors of childhood sexual abuse, 23% had a female-only perpetrator and 22% had both male and female perpetrators.
Women’s sexual abuse of children may be much more serious than men’s because women are more likely to have abused more children for a longer period of time, are more intrusive, and more likely to use higher rates of force than men.
All these studies I mentioned are here http://tinyurl.com/2gx53tl
And over 500 more, including those, are listed here with links to most of them http://tinyurl.com/23wwsmh
Rhiannon at January 13, 2011 10:09 PM
"Recall that guy(think it was in Illinois) who slammed on his brakes to avoid running over a girl with his car, got out, took her by the hand and walked her off the street only to become a convicted child molester for his trouble?"
Can someone post a link to that story? I never heard anything about it, and to be honest the way it's described here makes it sounds kind of far-fetched. I'm genuinely interested in hearing the rest of the details.
JonnyT at January 13, 2011 10:39 PM
JonnyT,
Here is a link to some information on that incident:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190586,00.html
I agree that it sounds "far-fetched" but if you look into it the details of the story it pretty much bares out what has been said.
Reality at January 13, 2011 11:03 PM
In an indirect way, this proves my informal thesis:
Men, do not marry, unless you are good-looking or wealthy. Otherwise, you are simply asking for trouble.
mpetrie98 at January 14, 2011 2:13 AM
Yet the author finds cause to generate excuses to reduce the guilt of the women but does not seek to do the same for the men.
There's a good argument to be made that people just can't acknowledge that women can be abusive towards children, for deep seated psychological reasons. They do what Michelle is doing, and find some way to point the blame back at men.
Something to keep in mind is that if there's an abusive non-parent male in the house. He's there by the mother's consent. So she is complicit. Therefore all abuse by these men is abuse by the mothers as well, though only the male is counted.
jomimbi at January 14, 2011 6:11 AM
Michelle isn't citing statistics, she's cribbing from a website that's using figures provided by a 'learning specialist' named C. J. Newton.
The real stats, from the NIS, are here - http://www.zentactics.com/child-abuse-statistics.html
Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%)..
Which directly contradicts the lies that she's promoting.
stop the lies at January 14, 2011 6:34 AM
Reality, the author's change in language caught my attention too. Here's that sentence in a fuller context:
"This last statistic is unfair because it includes child neglect, in which mothers are named at rates that are absurd given that women accused of child neglect are almost always single mothers. The fathers who abandon their children are almost never convicted of child neglect."
From the last sentence in the above excerpt, I infer that the author views child abandonment to be per se neglect - that the blame for children who are neglected by some single mothers should be shared with the men who abandoned their children to those mothers.
I think what he's getting at is that most child abuse is not sexual abuse, but is instead neglect. Neglect as it is defined for the purposes of collecting data is a crime of opportunity; the custodial parent is usually the biological mother. He appears (to me) to find fault with the fact that abandonment is not considered to be per se neglect - so the custodial parent who cannot or does not provide for a child will be guilty of neglect, but not the parent who physically leaves and does not secure food/clothing/shelter for the child.
Although most men are not sexual predators of children, most people who have been caught being sexual predators of children, have been men. Most children who are sexually abused, are abused by family members who are one degree removed from "father," be it brother, cousin, grandfather, or close family friend.
I do understand your point that women choose their paramours, and that women who are mothers and who introduce their boyfriends/ husbands etc. to their children are therefore responsible for having introduced their child to yet another potential child molester. What an awkward reality to exist in - being responsible for protecting your kid from potential child molesters and also demonized by men for screening them to see if they are child molesters or faulted for being lax enough not to screen them for being child molesters. It is safe to say that being a parent is no way to win a popularity contest.
Jomimibi (above), being complicit means choosing to participate in an illegal act. Where a woman has no knowledge, she is not complicit. Blame is usually reserved for people who had actual knowledge, or who should have known.
Unless you suggest that all men should be deemed child abusers unless proven otherwise, there is nothing intrinsically suspect about a man who wants to have an intimate relationship with a woman who already has children.
"If more children were raised by single fathers one should simultaneously expect increased rates of abuse by those fathers coupled with increased rates of abuse by women those men become romantically involved with." ~ Reality
First, clarify which type of abuse - neglect, physical, sexual? Next, determine what is the rate of abuse of children raised by single fathers, and the rate of abuse of children by fathers' live-in paramours. I have not seen that data.
Michelle at January 14, 2011 6:57 AM
"Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%)." ~Stop the lies
This statistic first appears in this discussion in the post I made. In other words, you quote the same statistic to which I cited.
The article to which I cited, cites to its original sources, which as I recall are federal government agencies, major NGO's, medical professional organizations, etc.
Michelle at January 14, 2011 7:03 AM
Michelle,
Thank you for your response. I'll try my best to address what you have said. The first thing I want to say though is that while your desire for citations in this conversation is admirable and warranted, due to the limitations of this forum I won’t be able to back up everything I say rigorously (we are only allowed one link per post). As a result of this restriction I propose that I simply state my case and we can simply revisit disputed claims later, the ones that are undisputed are hardly a matter to be concerned with.
To begin, I actually agree that child abandonment can be a form of abuse insofar as the abandonment is voluntary and that the individual had already assumed a parental role prior to the abandonment event. It is my belief that this restricted definition is not the same one that the author in your cited article is using. To better understand single motherhood we must first acknowledge how it generally comes to pass.
Firstly, the rates of single motherhood are significantly higher amongst those on the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum and within inner city environments. Within these same environments the incarceration rate amongst men is higher than that of the general population. The removal of a father by throwing him into jail would not constitute voluntary abandonment. Secondly, the promiscuity of parents under the same set of conditions is higher than that of the general population. If a woman is unsure who the father is, the father can hardly be held fully responsible for not being in the child’s life. The mother must invariably be able to accurately identify the father in order for it to be considered an issue of abandonment.
Thirdly, amongst once stable married couples, the divorce rate remains very high with the majority of divorces being initiated by women. In addition, in the vast majority of cases it is the mother who is granted primary custody. So long as the father in this situation remains as involved as the mother permits him to be, he cannot be held responsible for any deemed lack of involvement. Afterall, he is essentially at the mercy of the courts ruling and the choices of the parent with primary custody. His limited involvement in such situations cannot be identified as abandonment either because it to would be involuntary.
Fourthly, we have a very different name than abandonment for what we call it when a new mother decides she isn’t ready to be a parent. In those situations we call it putting the child up for adoption which would never be considered abuse. A new father in the same situation should have the ability to choose to not be an involved parent without resorting to classifying it as abuse. Now as determined by law he may have financial obligations, no law can require involvement in actively raising the child. If a father has never participated in the raising of a child it cannot be considered abandonment or abuse in much the same way that a mother who doesn’t participate in raising a child by putting it up for adoption isn’t held to that same ethical standard.
As a result of all of these factors, I find the authors contentions about the “unfairness” of the last statistic to be dubious. Ultimately, no statistics are fair or unfair unless we are attempting to compare them to something else. Statistics are just numbers, if one understands how they are generated one can assess how useful they are. By saying that the statistic about mothers is “unfair” but the one about men is “fair” what the author is really trying to do is say that the reader can simply dismiss the negative statistic about mothers entirely. Unfortunately, as I pointed out in my previous post, the two statistics brought to light are related to one another.
Only if one is being intellectually dishonest can they dismiss the statistic about the mothers while keeping the one about men. Both the statistics have equal validity in this case, they are both good or they are both bad. The author makes the error of trying to dismiss one while keeping the other which is logically inconsistent.
Reality at January 14, 2011 7:49 AM
This statistic first appears in this discussion in the post I made. In other words, you quote the same statistic to which I cited.
Yes, but you reversed the attribution of the percentages to make it seem like men were more abusive, when it's actually women.
stop the lies at January 14, 2011 8:58 AM
Michelle,
I forgot to address your last point:
“First, clarify which type of abuse - neglect, physical, sexual? Next, determine what is the rate of abuse of children raised by single fathers, and the rate of abuse of children by fathers' live-in paramours. I have not seen that data.”
I’m not entirely certain that the type of abuse needs to be clarified when my contention has more to do with addressing inconsistencies in argumentation. I will attempt to explain in greater detail below.
First, the statistics seem to bare out the following two facts:
A - More biological mothers abuse children than biological fathers
B - More non-biological father figures abuse children than non-biological mother figures
I am content to accept these statistics at face value without further analysis or judgment. They tell us an interesting story, but often times people can be motivated to dismiss one of these two statements while emphasizing the other. Unfortunately that isn’t a reasonable way of handling the data.
When people make attempts to dismiss statistic A they usually do so according to the following logic:
1 - Mothers tend to be the primary care givers of children
2 - There are more single mothers raising children than single fathers raising children
3 - More mothers have primary custody of children in divorce situations than fathers
Therefore they claim that since biological mothers spend more time in aggregate raising and caring for children than biological fathers, that it is logical to expect that there will be more total incidents of abuse by biological mothers upon children than by biological fathers. Their claim amounts to saying that statistic A is “unfair” because it should be normalized to account for time spent caring for children.
That is all well and good except for the fact that these same individuals never seem to apply the same logic to statistic B which would bare out the following set of premises:
4 - More men date or become romantically involved with single mothers than women date or become romantically involved with single fathers (we know this because there are more single mothers than single fathers)
5 - More men marry women with primary custody of children than women marry men with primary custody of children (again we know this because there are more women with primary custody than men)
6 - More men end up residing in the same home as children who aren’t their own than women (this is a natural consequence of 4 and 5)
Therefore shouldn’t it also be valid to claim that since non-biological father figures spend more time in aggregate raising and caring for children than non-biological mothers, that it is logical to expect statistic B? So by the very same logic, statistic B is also “unfair” and needs to be normalized to account for the time spent caring for children.
Yet time and again I see people justifying away statistic A as “unfair” while keeping statistic B as a means to suggest that men are worse with children than women.
The statement that I made which you desire clairification for simply turns all of this logic on its head and asks the following question:
What would we expect the statistics to look like if 1, 2, and 3 were reversed?
The answer is that we should expect statistics A and B to shift in opposite directions. This follows simply from the logical implications of such a change and doesn’t require an understanding of the types of abuse or the rates of abuse.
Reality at January 14, 2011 9:54 AM
Regarding the story about the grandma who punched the good Samaritan in the face for pulling her grandchildren out of the car:
Grandma sounds pretty out of it. If the fire was started by the front tires, the smell of burning rubber must have been nearly overwhelming. That she did nothing about it until she saw someone banging on the car window speaks volumes about her.
alittlesense at January 14, 2011 9:54 AM
"Yes, but you reversed the attribution of the percentages to make it seem like men were more abusive, when it's actually women.
Posted by: stop the lies at January 14, 2011 8:58 AM"
Not so. Patently wrong.
See
"Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%)..."
as it appeared at
Posted by: Michelle at January 13, 2011 8:30 PM
Michelle at January 14, 2011 10:19 AM
Hi Reality. Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I've taken statistics and policy research classes and have done issue-based advocacy. I found the author's use of the word "unfair" to be at best a poor choice of words, for the reasons you mentioned above. I think the writer opened a can of worms that the article would have been better off without, but I do think he was on to something deserving (and requiring) of elaboration.
Michelle at January 14, 2011 10:35 AM
JohnnyT
Another link for you on the Fitzroy Barnaby case:
http://overlawyered.com/2005/07/he-grabbed-girls-arm-now-hes-a-sex-offender/
Sio at January 14, 2011 11:25 AM
"Children who had been physically abused by their birth parents were more likely to have suffered at the hands of their mothers than their fathers (60% versus 48%)..."
as it appeared at
Posted by: Michelle at January 13, 2011 8:30 PM
WHA!?! NO. Here's your statement. The one from your post. The one I'd posted is from the NIS.
You'd stated..
"Among all abused children, those abused by their birth parents were about equally likely to have been abused by mothers as by fathers (50% and 58%, respectively)
stop the lies at January 14, 2011 12:00 PM
A really powerful description of the changes we have seen in the past several years, especially since 9/11. erhaps Amy will even make a blog item out of it?
"What no one seemed to notice was the ever widening gap between the government and the people. And it became always wider.....the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think....for people who did not want to think anyway gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about.....and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated.....by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.....
"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'.....must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing.....Each act is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next.
"You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even talk, alone.....you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes.
"That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.
"You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father.....could never have imagined."
Read it. Think about it. Only then should you go see where it comes from.
a_random_guy at January 14, 2011 12:50 PM
"Stop the lies"...
I think it's less an issue of others lying, and more an issue of reading comprehension.
It's all there, above, and in context.
Michelle at January 14, 2011 7:11 PM
Michelle,
I lived through the CSA witch hunt in the 80's.
It taught me well that Mark Twain was right:
You always need to look at the source material. A study of 50 people and projecting that onto the 300 million is a total farce.
Jim P. at January 15, 2011 6:17 AM
I find it disturbing that our contemporary society is able to create an image of a "Every man is a Monster". Unfortunately it is not that easy to say that men stopped helping, because of individual encounters with overprotective mothers. As with many issues in modern life, problems are rooting and growing through the influence of everybody and everyone, our society. No one can really point fingers trying to find the one responsible. However,I do point my finger at our blessed and unfortunate technological evolution. With a simple click of a button the image of a man, (being a potential pedophile) is created, spread over the newspapers, television and internet. Now, I am not saying it is wrong to stay informed, but we are creating a Blackbox generation in where most people just take in information without questioning it, or even THINK about it.
I just recently I moved to the United States from Germany, and were I came from the danger of having your child abducted is as present as in any other country, but the paranoia, created by the media, is far less developed.
To add a personal note, I am a film student majoring in motion picture production. Last Spring I was shooting a film near a playground, a film about the ritual of life, a fast-forward from the days of childhood until retirement. Only living in the States for about a couple of months, not being entirely comfortable with the American law I started shooting away together with my film crew. At this point there were no children present at the playground, but that did not stop worried parents to call the cops on me.
I was arrested and my film, and camera confiscated.
Dennis at January 20, 2011 5:28 PM
Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The words in your article seem to be running off the screen in Safari. I'm not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with internet browser compatibility but I thought I'd post to let you know. The style and design look great though! Hope you get the problem resolved soon. Many thanks
Buy ArcheAge Account at May 15, 2011 7:36 PM
Leave a comment