> One even accused him of photographing
> youngsters to put the pictures on the internet.

Ironic, given the picture accompanying the blog post.

We are instilling needless fear in our children. This blanket hysteria hurts those it's supposed to protect. Instead of giving children the security of tools to assess situations so they know when its unsafe and how to react, children are being given the message that they are never safe and they always need to remember that. It is shocking and needless that children are being made to live with this continual fear for their safety.

It is shocking and needless that children are being made to live with this continual fear for their safety.

And completely useful to those who desire an all-encompassing nanny-state.

With themselves as the nanny, of course.

In the UK is there an expectation of public privacy? My understanding is that in the US, the man would have been legally allowed to take pictures of the people complaining and post them on the internet, since they were in a public place.

I'm glad to hear that he reacted how he did. Bystanders like that need to be corrected, lest they think that their behavior is acceptable.

One winter when my daughter was three, I took her to the local mall with an indoor play area. It was really cute watching her play on the play equipment and I started videotaping her. Thirty seconds into videotaping her a security officer from the mall came over to me and told me I couldn't use a video-recorder in the mall.

I saw a woman on the other side of the play area pointing at me at me and whispering intently to her friend.

The officer said "We don't allow videotaping in the mall." I said "I don't see any signs that say I can't." I said "Why can't I?" He said it was "Mall policy."I said "Show me something in writing." He said if you use your cam corder I will have to ask you to leave. My daughter came over about that time and I decided to drop it.

I wasn't filming any one else's kid, just my own. I was pretty ticked off.
I called the mall management but it was a weekend so I had to call back Monday.

On Monday I asked the first person I talked to about the Mall's policy on videotaping. She didn't seem to know anything about it. She said she would look into it and have someone call me.

On Tuesday a guy from the mall called me and said They don't allow videotaping because a jewelry store had been robbed at the mall and they think a guy used a video recorder to tape the jewelry cases before he robbed them. I said "Why don't you put up signs at the entrances to the mall so that people know that?"
He said "he didn't really feel that was neccessary."
Since that time I have taken my daughter back their and have seen numerous moms taking pictures of their kids with their cell phones and have never seen an officer come and talk to them about it.
I would boycott their mall but it is only 5 minutes from my house. The next mall with a play area is 45 minutes from my house.

So David M. left unstated the crux of the matter: it's not about the photographing, it's about the gender of the person doing it.

I follow the free range kids philosophy, and this certainly upsets the paranoid parents in my neighborhood.

I haven't had the camera problem since I am not a camera nut. However, tomorrow on 9/11/2009, my son turns 9 years old. It's a Friday, pizza party and sleepover. Except most of his friends can't sleepover, because I'm a single father. Some of his friends aren't allowed to come to my house, he can only go to their houses. I must be a pervert. This used to bother the crap out of me, but I decided not to make it a point to educate these asshole hypocritical parents. And it helps me keep my house clean. It certainly hurts my son's feelings, but I don't expect this to drive him to climb a clock tower and start knocking everyone off. And this jerk parent behavior will taper off as the kids get older.

One of the young mothers that is most adamant about not letting her son come over is a piece of work. Early thirties, and has three kids from her (so far) three marriages. The last time I spoke to her, she said she just didn't feel comfortable letting her son visit my house since I'm single. I certainly can't argue with that logic, it's ok for her to marry, divorce, marry, divorce, marry and put her kids thru stepfather hell? Sarcasm intended.

Now as a bitchy sidenote, take a few pictures of your kids, film a little if you want, and move the fuck on. I love my son, and sometimes even like him when he's not driving me crazy, but how many pictures do I need of him playing in McDonald's Playland? Just a thought. And I've taken pictures at the park and chuck e cheese, and 100s of other places, but I usually hand the camera to someone else so we can both be in the picture. And it may help that my son is almost an exact DNA database replica, and we look like twins born 36 years apart.

I close by saying in the states and western europe, we are in a nanny state, or heading that way fast.

Considering the UK has the most camera surveillance on public streets of any place in the world, I think this hysteria is exactly what David M stated.

I'm sorry to hear about how much crap you have to go through, sterling.

I wonder if the people trying so hard to protect the children will every understand how much damage they are doing to children, and to society, by teaching them that all strangers (and men in particular) are itching to diddle them. And making men terrified to be active caregivers.

This was 20+ years ago, but my father was very active in my life: taking me to softball practice and staying for games; volunteering in the lunch room; working part time at the elementary school; watching me play out front by the house, etc. He was retired and had plenty of time for that stuff. My life would have been far less rich if he'd been afraid to be seen with me in public.

So David M. left unstated the crux of the matter: it's not about the photographing, it's about the gender of the person doing it.

Posted by: Cousin Dave at September 10, 2009 6:55 AM
_________________________________

That's the feeling I was left with.

Given that both statistically and in hard numbers children are far more likely to be abused, molested, and murdered by women why is it that everyone is afraid of men?

Or is it possible some of this hysteria is manufactured for some other reason? Need for attention? Soaps gone into reruns over the summer?

Child abuse hysteria of this sort is only prominent in Anglo regions ( US,UK,CDN ). It seems to tie-in with the so called 'pornography of victimization' that is popular among women in these regions. This is the erotic fascination that many Anglo women have with their own abuse and degradation.

A common cultural reference that you'll see cited, by non-western commentators, is that in the US there are multiple television channels entirely dedicated to presenting romanticized stories of victimized and degraded women. There are multiple genres of film, television, writing, and visual arts that are solely concerned with the same. The contemplation of abuse and humiliation is considered as entertainment by many women in these countries.

I think that this aspect of the feminine culture drives child abuse hysteria. You see the same themes and character types applied here as you do in the abuse fantasies on television. Also the popular narrative of how abuse to children occurs fits the same dramatic conventions. Women seem to be projecting their fantasies onto children.

This is not to say that child abuse is not a concern. It's obviously something to guard against. But when you see such elaborate and lurid narratives at play, it suggests that there are other motives at work.

The new media also create hysteria around kidnappings and the suchlike that help make a feeding frenzy. No-one takes a breath and remembers that these sorts of things don't happen nearly as much as it seems from the news.

Whoops - that should read 'news media' - snort!

Well-spotted, Amy. What I think this is really all about is a psycho-zoidally backhanded attempt to distract people from the thing in these generations that's truly brutalizing children, and certainly a source for much of the sexual abuse which they do actually suffer: Incompetent pairing, i.e., divorce. If all these women had given their children loving fathers (and all the men had selected loving mothers), there'd be a lot fewer weird 'uncles' drifting through these kids' lives.

Imagine trying to get Kindergarten Cop made today.

"I saw a woman on the other side of the play area pointing at me at me and whispering intently to her friend."

A lot of them are bigoted pigs, aren't they?

The comment thread on the Guardian article on this was a revelation. A commenter who calls herself "Mswoman" (Cath elliot, a contributor at the paper) tried to defend this action, commenter after commenter jumped on her and said that if she saw anything at all dangerous or sexual in this, then she was the one who was "sexualizing" these children and she was more of a threat to them than anyone filming them. She is not used to being on the receiving end of moral preachments or condemnations, and she sounded quite taken aback.

Jim, I realize it's risky posting links to this blog, but would you please tell us how to find the Guardian comment thread? I tried searching for Crutchley's name at the Guardian website and couldn't find anything. Various keyword searches didn't work either. Thanks.

Oh, please.

This has nothing at all to do with "protecting" children. This has everything to do with demonizing men and pursuing the continual attack on fatherhood -- where it will hurt men (and thus children) the most.

Given that the vast majority of fathers do their utmost to provide for and protect their families (which is why their wives and children are safer than other women and children), isn't anyone curious as to why feminists and their government lackeys (or is it the other way around?) are SO eager to get men out of the way? SO eager to drive a wedge between men and children in general? To make fatherhood a purely financial burden, rather than a personal relationship? To make the presence of a father optional, if not downright undesirable, in our new "families"?

Who gains from this? Who loses?

If women generally think they gain from this situation, notwithstanding the undisputed needs of their children, then it is true that I don't know women. And that I don't want to.

If they don't gain, then why do so few seem to care? Don't they see that they are losing, and losing big?

I think the nannies are as vile and inane as anyone else here does, but let me offer a kindler, gentler perspective (can't we all get along?): perhaps the "tattlers" are trying, clumsily, to act communally, as if to say "We're good citizens! We saw something dangerous and dealt with it!". Wait for it: Naaaahhhh! They're just anal busybodies looking for attention.

Being the nosy asshat I am, though, I might have approached the father and politely said "I think it's great your kids are having a great time and you're taking photos, but those gawkers over there want to jail you. Paranoia sure sucks, doesn't it?"

2 decades ago I put an ad in the town newspaper "Young man looking for Scout troop to work with." About a year later, long after they all figured out I wasn't a wacko, the parents told me about their initial concerns, which was why the person who called me (pre-web) about the ad asked some probing questions. BTW, I abhor the Mormons' grip on Boy Scouts and their blatant homophobic policy.

I have a female friend who is single and does foster care. She has seen me with my daughter and says I'm a great parent, and should do foster care.

I explained that as a single male I would never puy myself in that position, due to things such as this article and others I have seen or experienced.

I also had a friend ask me if I would coach a little girl's softball team. Nope! I would never put myself at risk. My daughter is too important to me.

I should have added about the softball.
All it would take is one petty mom that thought I was favoring another girl over her daughter, or giving someone else more playing time than her daughter to make an accusation, and I would be toast.

Men are guilty until proven innocent in these type of accusations, and a shattered reputation never goes away. It's better just to avoid the risk all together.

Lenona,

"http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/sep/09/child-porn-photography"

Sample comments:

" I am afraid that Mswoman is an object lesson in why we have such a dysfunctional attitude to children. Her assumption is that anyone taking a photograph of her children is up to no good. If this were simply her personal paranoia then that would be bad enough. But unfortunately this suspicious attitude has poisoned our public spaces to an extent where no man on his own would dare help a child for fear of facing the wrath of people who think like Mswoman. And this quite literally kills children."

"The only sexually explicit language introduced to this thread was on the part of Mswoman - the rest are quoting her.
I wouldn´t even trust my children to live in the same country as she does."

"A few people have alluded to the causes of the paedophilia issue, but it has been a combination of factors that has led us to this point.
The overall agenda, or common thread, running through the issue is that it is anti-male. The lady photographer voiced it best.
For many years, I used to volunteer as a First Aider at public events in the area I live in. I volunteer no more after being assaulted by a drunken bye-stander at the local Agricultural Show for puitting a sling onto a child with a fractured wrist, despite her parents being there !! The idiot tried to justify himself by claiming that I was touching the little girl up before running away in the face of an angry father and my male colleague.
I reported the attack, verified by the little girl's parents and my colleague, however, the police were unable to catch the individual involved.
Over the weeks and months that followed, the organisation that I voluntered for produced more and more limitations as to what male volunteers could and could not do to the extent that I ceased volunteering for public duties. I still maintain my First Aid skills for my own family circumstances, and, when asked will deliver training sessions.
However, when I see an injured child in the street or an injured woman with drink of an evening, or any other situation involving injured people that I do not know, I'll lower my head and walk on bye.
It shames me to do it, but the risks are just too great these days !"

"'I can understand completely why someone would be suspicious of a guy photographing other people's children without permission'

MSwoman (emphasis mine)
A guy? It's ok if it's a woman?
A man is a paedo until proven innocent (which is impossible I guess) and a woman is innocent until proven to be a paedo.
Let's not try to judge risk in any sensible way then, shall we?
s others have said, given the miniscule number of paedophiles, more damage is probably done by these attitudes. So anyone displaying them is, in fact, part of the problem."

Etc. It goes on for several pages of comments.

This hysteria hurts women -- and feminism -- as well. I'd hate to be chained to kids and home, with no life outside my family, because society won't let my (theoretical) child's father play an active role in parenting. Maybe martyrs to the family like that sort of thing.

It's all part of the Hidden!Danger mentality. Don't drink the water, because the chemicals will kill you. Don't buy old books, because the lead will jump off the page and choke you to death. Don't let your kid talk to a stranger, especially a man, because there's a kidnapper behind every tree, ready to entice your baby with ecstasy-laden Halloween candy.

It seems to be part of the competitive parenting trend. "I love my child more than you love yours, because I would never let him do something so dangerous." In that world, you're not a good parent unless you are protecting your children from every danger, real and imagined.

"Don't buy old books, because the lead will jump off the page and choke you to death"

Thanks, I needed a laugh tonite!

However, when I see an injured child in the street or an injured woman with drink of an evening, or any other situation involving injured people that I do not know, I'll lower my head and walk on bye.
It shames me to do it, but the risks are just too great these days !"
Posted by: Jim at September 10, 2009 1:25 PM
______________________

I totally understand. I will not pick up a woman on the side of the road. I don't know if her vehicle stalled, she was thrown out by her boyfriend etc..
I gave a ride to a young woman once and she asked me for money. She started making me very uncomfortable so I gave her the $4.00 in my ashtray and got her the hell out of my car.

If I saw a woman getting beat up by her boyfriend etc... I would walk on by. I will protect my daughter, my sisters, close female friends and relatives. I feel no obligation to help women I don't know as the general attitude of many women due to feminism is to screw men. Women don't stand up for men in family court, I won't stand up for them in my everyday life.

This still irks me and it happened two years ago! A neighbor, in essence, accused me of neglecting my seven year old because I let him talk to the guys putting a new roof on another neighbor's house, and I wasn't standing there holding his hand and ready to run.

This is the same neighbor who has never allowed her son to play in the front yard (and we live in a secluded area, so the traffic isn't even an issue) and who now, at the age of 8, probably weighs close to 200 pounds.

>>Given that both statistically and in hard numbers children are far more likely to be abused, molested, and murdered by women why is it that everyone is afraid of men?

I have for decades been amazed that the most sexist gender has been able to convince everyone they are totally non-sexist.

33 years ago, my 7 year old step-daughter was invited to a slumber party by a girl who was in custody of her father, a pastor of a local church whose wife had been found unfit to receive custody.

I insisted she go. My wife did not sleep, but paced up and down the house like a caged lion ALL NIGHT, crying. Unbelievable.

There were three girls at the party; the girl herself, a neighbor girl whose parents knew the pastor well, and our daughter. They had a great time, and stayed up almost all night. He neither raped or murdered them.

While I have been married all these years, I got a good image of what my wife really thinks of me.

And, yes, the abuse at my house did not come from me.

When I was a gir in the seventiesl, my father would often take my girly best friend to the beach. When we got back, he'd throw us in the tubt and, because we were quite young, help us wash our hair!

At that time, no-one gave it a second thought. In fact, she was safer at our house than at her own home - her single mom had unaddressed alcoholism and was quite abusive to my friend.

My friend got stability and a haven at my parent's home, yet today my wonderful dad wouldn't have been able to treat her like a second daughter.

Here's a sad reflection on our society.

Last winter I was taking my daily 5:30 am walk around our sub-division. It was dark, and I was about 1/2 way through my walk when a little girl started running across the street toward me.
She ran up on me said Hi, told me her name, and said she was 7 years old and was in second grade.
I actually thought about running away from her as I didn't want to be an adult male stranger walking with a child I did not know, in the dark. Then I thought if I run away from her I would call attention to myself and someone might question as to why I was running away from her.

The little girl was pleasant, asked if she could walk with me, and chatted me up. She said she was going down the street to meet her cousin, at her cousins house, and then they were going to walk to school together.

She said she had a sister at home and her mom had a new baby, her baby brother with her boyfriend. She said she didn't see much of her Dad because he didn't live with them. She said she didn't see much of her mom's boyfriend because he worked out of town.
I surmised, after we walked a block, and she met her cousin, that she was sort of starved for a Daddy figure in her life. She came up to me because I was an adult male figure that was missing from her life.

A lot of us have stories like that... I certainly do, and it pisses me off.

A lot of us have stories like that... I certainly do, and it pisses me off.

It makes me sad. Sad for the little girl who doesn't have a real Daddy in her life, and sad for the man who has to fear that little girl or the mother of her.

-Julie

'Sad' doesn't cover it. This isn't something that 'happens', it's something that's done to people. Naiveté is not cute.

Naiveté is not cute.

I'm not calling it cute. I weep for entire generations of people that either think women shouldn't have personal franchise, or that men are incapable of caring for children and being honorable. It is no wonder the divorce rate is so high, it seems a large number of men and women have no respect for each other.

-Julie

"This still irks me and it happened two years ago! A neighbor, in essence, accused me of neglecting my seven year old because I let him talk ..."

Karen, that woman is obviously an abuser of the most respectable kind. What is her opinion on parenting worht and why would you listen to her. The outage is that you can't report her to CPS, because her son needs protection.....from her!

Julie@: "it seems a large number of men and women have no respect for each other."

I agree. Why do you think this is?

Crid, yes we do all have stories. Over the years I have had more than one of my students (martial arts) tell me that they wished that I was their father. It breaks your heart. I remember each of them, and wonder still if what I was able to do for them ended up being enough to make a difference. I hope so, which is one of the reasons I still teach -- but always in a non-private setting, of course.

..."it seems a large number of men and women have no respect for each other."

I agree. Why do you think this is?

I don't think that there is a simple answer to this question. The low hanging fruit that most people will pull on (sexual revolution, women in the work force, lack of moral character, etc) are vast oversimplifications if not affectations.

If I were to take an uneducated stab at it I would stay that respect starts with one's self. You earn respect and esteem through being handed difficult situations and either rising to the challenge or failing and learning from it. Most children (and many adults)are not allowed or forced to do the very things that will build character and allow them to see that they are capable.

No chores, no mistakes, no unsupervised time. If a person is never given the opportunity to handle true adversity and rise to the challenge, they will never acquire their own esteem. He or she will never learn that difficulties happen to everyone and true adulthood happens when you learn to work through them and come out the other side. They will never learn that relationships take work and jobs often aren't fun or entertaining.

These people will look for respect in the eyes of others, which causes them to do remarkably stupid things and blame others when they feel like shit about what they've done. Others are viewed simply by what they can do to entertain us right now, leaving women to be viewed as recreational parks and men to be viewed as sad puppy dogs with wallets to support their 'surprise' offspring.

-Julie

What's "personal franchise"?

[Next day...]

I was really hoping she'd answer that question. "Personal franchise" sounds all human-rightsy, but people with children aren't operating a "franchise".

> If a person is never given the
> opportunity to handle
> true adversity

I've never, ever met a human being who was denied that opportunity... Ever. Loving families can show us how it works, but people who don't have examples to follow aren't excused from being strong.

What's "personal franchise"

The ability to choose one's direction in life and the responsibility to pay the consequences of those choices.

If a person is never given the opportunity to handle true adversity

I've never, ever met a human being who was denied that opportunity... Ever.

I see them all the time. People in their late 20s and early 30s who still live with their parents, can't manage money, and float from piss ant job to piss ant job because they have no real reason to keep a paycheck: mommy and daddy will continue to cover them if they fuck up or run out of money. They have been protected from all that is unpleasant and unentertaining. They've lived in a bubble for their entire lives and have no ability to care for themselves and are constantly looking to fill a hole that they won't admit exists.

When a person reaches that age, it is their own responsibility to get their shit together and become an adult. I'm not saying that we should all beat up on mommy and daddy. However, you really have to wonder how mom and dad couldn't see the future effect of their actions.

-Julie

P.S. I don't usually post on weekends. This is purely a way to entertain myself when I've completed all of my tasks at work.

-Julie