121–130 of 174 posts
I used to assist teaching a Saturday morning martial arts class for kids. The change-rooms were communal; nothing unusual and I never thought anything of it. Then I was told that it made the parents uncomfortable and I had to change in the office. Suddenly I felt embarrassed and shameful.
Then I was shocked that I had felt such feelings. I don't experience much, if any, discrimination in my life. I really empathize with those who do. It's terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are few other professions that result in a baby being sexually abused. I'm more than willing to bend over backwards to give someone a chance writing code, fixing plumbing, making clothing, painting a room. Some things I'm less willing to do. With that said, its a great opportunity for people who don't mind male daycare teachers to really get top quality care for less money. I think you'd be foolish not to explo…
This is what I mean by hysteria. Actual odds of a child being molested by a male teacher/caregiver? Female teacher/caregiver? Family member or family friend of either gender? Regardless of numbers or justification, you're also accepting a form of discrimination that would be much less acceptable for any other situation. Hell, even "I would never get a gay babysitter" would likely provoke more outrage. The worst part…
The media has such a ridiculously lopsided view of risk, but the general public buy it. They hop in their car to drive to the shop, leave their kids with that weird uncle without a second thought.
But because of media induced hysteria, worry about getting on a plane or leaving their kids with a male nursery assistant.
I'd place the blame firmly with the media, rather than with human nature.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The second page has a graph of individuals by "empathic concern" (ignoring the brain activity axis, which is what the study is actually demonstrating...)
Note that although women, on average, have higher scores than men (a mean difference of 2 on a scale of 1-20), almost half of the men have scores higher than the female average, and a quarter of the women have scores lower than the male average.
In more intuitive terms, out of this sample of 16 men and 16 women, the 7 most empathic men were more empathic than the 8 least empathic women. If you were trying to guess how empathic someone you meet is based on their sex, you would do slightly better than just flipping a coin. From this you're getting that "women are more empathic"?
Or are you using a slight statistical association to rationalize your cultural prejudice?
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?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7075/abs/nature04...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll never forget when my two oldest kids (now in their 20s) went to one of those early head-start kind of places when they were a kid. One week the lesson was on inappropriate touching. I know this because both kids spent the next month inappropriately touching everybody they met -- with some very humorous results. Of all the things that have changed in the last 40 years or so, this thing we've done where we've trai…
All the french people in the audience will remember the Outreau trial ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial ) where several innocent people spent years in prison and one commited suicide, all that based on the lies of two persons and bogus psychiatric expertise of the children. The media also took a big part in this debacle. I think it really made people realize something here, I don't think this could happen…
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…
Come on. There are countless studies that show the biological differences between the sexes and the way their brains work. It's not rocket science.
If you believe in evolution, surely you believe that over time, the female and male brains have developed for different functions. I've never understood why people disbelieve this and try to pretend that the sexes are identical.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where are the stats about male /teachers/ alone with pupils having a worrying level of sexual predation, which is what you claimed.
Here's one about daycare workers: http://bjsw.oxfordjournals.org/content/33/4/481.full.pdf Here's a quote based on their data, "In summary this study found that a sexual interest in children is relatively common among male public sector child care workers". Here's another study about educators: http://www.taasa.org/library/pdfs/TAASALibrary142.pdf Choice quote, "The vast majority (96%) of the abusers in our study wer…
This study is mindbogglingly dodgy, if you actually take it seriously I understand your hysteria, but a few thoughts;
1) Basic sanity check, you seriously buy that approximately one in five male workers in public sector child care work diagnose themselves as pedophiles? That's the most absurd up front point that just doesn't stand up to any kind of real world critical thought.
2) The methodology of the study claims that two questions were asked with responses on a likert scale "I am sexually attracted to some children" and "I would have sex with a child if it was certain noone would find out and there would be no punishment" with levels ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. On this seven point scale anything from 4-7 is considered to mean that the person is a pedophile. Children are defined as "before the subject's sixteenth birthday", by this measure someone who was unsure if they found a Britney Spears music video sexually attractive might potentially incriminate themselves as a pedophile.
3) further, the actual responses even by their dodgy methodology doesn't bring up the quoted 20% figure you offer, but these figures; Female childcare workers sexually attracted to some children 2%, Male childcare workers sexually attracted to some children 12%. I would have sex with a child if it was certain noone would find out and there would be no punishment, female 2%, male 4%.
By these methods they actually then come to the conclusion "sexual interest in children is relatively common among male public sector child care workers".
It is for reasons like these that I as a 31 year old male with no children or criminal history of any kind and an otherwise pronounced protective streak, would if walking down a dark street at night seeing a child crying and alone on the corner by themselves, not just keep on walking but move to the other side of the street. It should be terrifying to parents that this is the rational response for otherwise concerned strangers, but I guess that's more your problem than mine, and you can see how we come to that position by persecutory hysterical media such as the cited "study".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
The downvoting's annoying. I don't agree with you, but you're presenting your argument calmly, clearly, and with supporting links - I think that's always valuable.