Eek, A Male • Hacker News Board

Re: Eek, A Male

#111

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 10:49 PM UTC

ja27 wrote: post #13

PaulHoule wrote: post #3

My child went to an excellent day care center that got targeted for harassment because it had male workers. The place got inspected by the state and ultimately got a clean bill of health, but it cost them money and caused a lot of worry for them and parents who had children there. I spoke with the director and we both agreed that children spend too much time with women in school and day care. One of the reasons many…

I spent several years working with elementary-aged kids in our church. For one whole year, it was me and another dad with a class of a dozen or so 5 year olds. (We're all background-checked, for what little that's worth. We also have child protection guidelines to follow - foremost of which is to never be alone with a kid and no other adult.) It was amazing to see the reactions of moms dropping off their kids when th…

[deleted]

Re: Eek, A Male

#112

Post by barrkel » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 10:52 PM UTC

axod wrote: post #74

sarkozy wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that men are better at disciplining children than women are.

I'm not saying always , but certainly at the schools I went to, the female teachers were by and large softer, and would let you get away with more. I think naturally, when faced with bad behavior women will try to empathize and reason, whereas men will tend to punish/kick into line.

When I was a kid of 9 and in school, going into my first class with a male teacher, I had the same theory. It turned out I was wrong, though. My least favorite classes from then on out were all taught by women. It was like women had to be extra bitchy to maintain distance or something.

Re: Eek, A Male

#113

Post by Cushman » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 10:53 PM UTC

waqf wrote: post #102

Cushman wrote: post #98

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…

As far as I can tell, sarkozy doesn't have a study proving his point (or proving your straw-man version of his point) and you don't have a study proving yours. Now, why is it that you are entitled to an opinion and he is not?

As far as I can tell, the person bringing up "countless psychological studies" has a responsibility to provide their own evidence.

I have no problem with other people having opinions. I likewise have no problem with publicly disapproving of opinions which I think are socially harmful.

I don't have any illusions about changing a bigot's mind, but I can hope that others will see my disapproval and think that bigotry is just that much less cool.

Re: Eek, A Male

#114

Post by kenjackson » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 10:55 PM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #105

kenjackson wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Let's presume you are right and that a disturbingly large, statistically significant proportion of society are in fact pedophiles. 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…

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.

The only male family member I'd leave my child with is my father. I have two sisters, so the sibling angle not so big of a deal. And one brother-in-law who is a crimina ldefense lawyer, so won't stay alone in a room with kids anyways :-)

So maybe in some sense the family structure has made it easy for me to sidestep this potential conundrum.

And I agree about education and such. As the child is older I'd certainly relax things, but a toddler isn't going to know what is going on.

And regarding friends, I don't really have any male friends that I'd be comfortable leaving a toddler with -- even sexual abuse aside.

As children get older this changes, but 0-5 I just don't know if my child were around many men alone. And none regularly.

But I will grant you this... I'm at a more extreme side of the spectrum than most when it comes to risk avoidance in general. Especially compared to the HN crowd.

Re: Eek, A Male

#115

Post by btilly » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 11:00 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #90

potatolicious wrote: post #78

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…

FWIW the 20% figure is reasonable. Reading through http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full and doing some back of the envelope figures, let's suppose that 20% of the population has been abused. Let's suppose that the average abuser abuses 20 people. So 1% of the population are abusers. If virtually all abusers are men, that puts it at about 2% of the male population. (Which is, incidentally, similar in frequency from homosexuality. So this is not a difficult to believe rate to find for an unusual sexual orientation. Though evidence suggests very little overlap between homosexuality and pedophilia.)

Now add to this the fact that most men don't have a strong interest in children. But all pedophiles do. So among men who choose to deal with children all day, you have to expect much higher rates of pedophilia than in the general population. If it is an order of magnitude difference, you'd get to 20% pretty easily.

All of that notwithstanding, the best way to protect children seems to me to be to teach them what they should bring up with other adults. Abuse depends on secrecy. The best protection is light. This is much better than tarring 80% with the problems of the remaining 20%. Particularly if you believe, as I do, that it is important for children to have both male and female role models.

Furthermore it seems to me that we're creating our own problem. The more we demonize men who want to deal with children, the more we drive non-pedophiles away from that, then the higher the fraction of those left who are going to be pedophiles.

I understand your decision to react differently based on the data. But I don't agree with it.

Re: Eek, A Male

#116

Post by kenjackson » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 11:01 PM UTC

oiuhjyftgrdgh wrote: post #107

kenjackson wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If 99% of abuse is committed by men but 90% is committed by family members - then worrying that a stranger is man is not logical. 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.

The data I've seen (and cite/quote in previous posts in this thread) show that only 30% are committed by family members. 60% by out of family acquitances, like teachers, coaches, etc... And 10% by strangers.

Re: Eek, A Male

#117

Post by sarkozy » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 11:04 PM UTC

Cushman wrote: post #109

sarkozy wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's start with this one: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7075/abs/nature04...

What is that supposed to show? 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…

It's one of many studies that demonstrate empirically that women are more empathic than men. My assumption is that the difference relates to genetics but what matters is that there is an observable difference that will have an impact in the real world - especially in the workplace - which is what this discussion is about.

Re: Eek, A Male

#118

Post by jtbigwoo » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 11:06 PM UTC

aaronroyer wrote: post #63

zdw wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally, it's considered OK to slam men in media, where it isn't right to do it to women. The next time you see a commercial that makes use of gender roles, swap the genders and see if the commercial would still be suitable. Most don't hold up to this scrutiny.

I agree that the phenomenon is undeniable. Commercial after commercial shows a bumbling, silly, or wrongheaded male creating a problem that an eye-rolling female armed with the advertised product is able to solve. I used to find this mildly annoying. I thought that surely our society is sufficiently advanced that we might accept roughly equal occurrences of each gender as the goats in these commercials without it see…

I've noticed four avenues marketers usually take and they're all pretty demeaning.

Selling to women? -Men are morons who can't understand this product like you can. -These women are better than you because they consume this product

Selling to men? -Women are items to be acquired through the use of this product. -These men are better than you because they use this product (or in the case of the Miller Light ad, "Here's what you look like when you don't drink Miller Light.")

Re: Eek, A Male

#119

Post by kenjackson » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 11:07 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #115

kenjackson wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

FWIW the 20% figure is reasonable. Reading through http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full and doing some back of the envelope figures, let's suppose that 20% of the population has been abused. Let's suppose that the average abuser abuses 20 people. So 1% of the population are abusers. If virtually all abusers are men, that puts it at about 2% of the male population. (Which is, incidentally, simila…

The more we demonize men who want to deal with children, the more we drive non-pedophiles away from that, then the higher the fraction of those left who are going to be pedophiles.

I agree with that, and I don't like it. I don't particularly like the position I have. I struggle to take on a different one though.

Re: Eek, A Male

#120

Post by kmfrk » Tue, Jan 18, 2011, 11:07 PM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #3

My child went to an excellent day care center that got targeted for harassment because it had male workers. The place got inspected by the state and ultimately got a clean bill of health, but it cost them money and caused a lot of worry for them and parents who had children there. I spoke with the director and we both agreed that children spend too much time with women in school and day care. One of the reasons many…

A friend of mine worked in the day care centre at my old (Western-European) school (ages 6--10 years), and he told me that, for guys, letting children sit on your lap was strictly verboten.

Pardon my French, but what the fuck has the world come to? It really makes me sad how little solidarity there is in today's world where people become more insulated and afraid of each other for no rational reason. I love being very physical when I'm social, regardless of how well I know some people, and I am seriously worried about the day that the paedophilia thought police (PTPD) knocks on my door.

- - -

It boggles my mind how so many things are going backwards as time moves forwards, even though you'd think the opposite would happen. In ten years' time, will Santa Claus be abhorred as a paedophile, or will Coca Cola have to cave to public pressure and feature Ms Claus instead, so children can still sit in the Christmas and share their adorable, naïve wishes?

If we ever get an equivalent to Mad Men that takes place in the 10s, I'm sure people will balk at things like these and wonder what the hell we were thinking. Or maybe things will have become much worse by then.