101–110 of 174 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Downvote the heretic! Unpopular opinions will not be tolerated! Oh, HN, you never fail to disappoint.
Public shaming is an appropriate response to prejudice. It's how we get from "that's common sense" to "does anyone really think that?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But perhaps not an appropriate response to scientific fact. Countless psychological studies have documented women's higher innate capacities for communication and empathy. So if you disagree on that fact, you are simply misinformed. What I'm saying might not be popular and might even sound prejudicial but there is no debating the innate genetic differences between men and women.
Really? Let's debate. Do you have a study documenting the case of a statistically significant number of children raised in an environment where every single other person isn't constantly treating them like they should behave a particular way because of their genitals? Because otherwise you're just redemonstrating the already well-documented fact that children tend to behave the way they are expected to behave, which…
Now, why is it that you are entitled to an opinion and he is not?
[I originally posted this on a reddit discussion, link's at the bottom] One day, my friend Bryan was charged with the daunting task of getting Ellie, one of the older and more difficult students, to read out of a children's book for a distinct and measurable amount of time. After some cajoling, pleading, and maybe even trickery, the two were finally sitting down at a table with myself and another student. To keep Ell…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But perhaps not an appropriate response to scientific fact. Countless psychological studies have documented women's higher innate capacities for communication and empathy. So if you disagree on that fact, you are simply misinformed. What I'm saying might not be popular and might even sound prejudicial but there is no debating the innate genetic differences between men and women.
Really? Let's debate. Do you have a study documenting the case of a statistically significant number of children raised in an environment where every single other person isn't constantly treating them like they should behave a particular way because of their genitals? Because otherwise you're just redemonstrating the already well-documented fact that children tend to behave the way they are expected to behave, which…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7075/abs/nature04...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've failed to address the core question, and instead are following a red herring: What are the chances of my child's teacher (of any gender) being a molester? The answer to that, as always is: vanishingly low. So sure, I'm willing to go along with the notion that, in the absurdly improbable case that your child's teacher is a molester, it's probably a man and not a woman. So? Your child is orders of magnitude more…
The answer isn't vanishingly low. Contrary to popular belief, while family is the single largest group to molest a child it isn't an order of magnitude difference. And to capture just sheer numbers, I've borrowed a quote from Wikipedia: "In North America, for example, approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[11][12][13] Most sexual abuse offenders are acquai…
How are you combating the largest source of sexual abuse: i.e., family and friends? And why is that not applicable to your child's education where their risk factors are far lower?
I don't know about you - but I'm not going to ban my neighbors from seeing my child, nor would I give Uncle Bob the stink eye every time he gets near my niece. The reasonable stance in this case seems to be one of vigilance and education - be mindful that it may happen, educate your child to report untoward things, and do your best to vet people close to you.
You do this for your babysitter too. So why not your educators?
Your concerns are valid, but IMHO your reaction is entirely disproportionate. If your stance is proportionate to risk, you wouldn't ever leave your child alone with a family friend, or your own siblings for that matter. It still seems unreasonable to ban an entire gender of educators from your child's life over this.
To be clear, I'm not trying to dismiss your concerns in their entirety (though I do question the weight of these concerns). What seems absurd is that most families fail to address the far larger, far scarier risk factor while devoting all of their attention to a relatively tiny slice of the child abuse pie. It also seems absurd that these same families are willing to throw male educators to the wolves while Sketchy Uncle Bob gets a free pass.
[edit] As an aside:
> "studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys"
That's a gapingly wide confidence interval there. What sort of data are we basing this on?
[I originally posted this on a reddit discussion, link's at the bottom] One day, my friend Bryan was charged with the daunting task of getting Ellie, one of the older and more difficult students, to read out of a children's book for a distinct and measurable amount of time. After some cajoling, pleading, and maybe even trickery, the two were finally sitting down at a table with myself and another student. To keep Ell…
The more dangerous it is to deal with kids (because of potential legal consequences), the less people want to deal with kids.
End result: childcare (formal and informal) is getting more expensive, potential parents have less children or don't have children at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's why we had to get rid of our German professor. Statistically there was a 7.5% risk he would gas the students (6 million Jews/80 Million Germans)
I get your trying to be cute, but your example is pretty poor. One can reasonably argue that the Germans were either part of or led by the Nazi party. You could argue there hasn't been a gasing in 50 years. You can argue that they occurred in Europe (maybe you're in Europe, but just in case you're not). I can't give you any reassurance like that. I can't say that men with college degrees don't do it. That it hasn't h…
The point of the article though is that an unofficial blanket ban on male teachers - in case they are abusers - makes as much sense as a ban on Muslim airline pilots, or on Germans in uniform.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airline_sex_discrimination_poli...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? Let's debate. Do you have a study documenting the case of a statistically significant number of children raised in an environment where every single other person isn't constantly treating them like they should behave a particular way because of their genitals? Because otherwise you're just redemonstrating the already well-documented fact that children tend to behave the way they are expected to behave, which…
Let's start with this one: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7075/abs/nature04...
It's studying adults, so it can't and of course doesn't make any claims about genetics like you're trying to.
I can only find one place with any information about individuals (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7075/fig_tab/natu...), but according to that one graph the difference among all men is more than twice the difference between the average of all men and the average of all women. Even the cultural implication isn't valuable for making statements about individuals.
Doesn't really look like it answers either of my points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See my other post, which contains some. If you don't think those are satisfactory (and please state why), I have more.
I find it interesting that I was downmodded on this. They ask for citations, I provided them. People wanted different kinds of data, I got data to address their points. I don't think the problem is the citations or the data, but rather the viewpoint. Lets be clear, you don't want citations or data. You want me to change my mind.