Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eek, A Male

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 174 posts

Re: Eek, A Male

#161

Post by jongraehl »

kenjackson wrote: post #114
potatolicious wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 struct…

0-5 year olds are especially at risk (compared to older pre-teens) for sexual abuse from some significant number of sick (mostly male) adults? Or your 6+ year olds will be trained to defend themselves?

Re: Eek, A Male

#162

Post by jongraehl »

oiuhjyftgrdgh wrote: post #64
kenjackson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to admit I'd go the complete opposite. I do know there are great male teachers, but in environments where the male teacher might be alone with children I am hesitant. The data bears this out, as does personal experience. With that said male coaches or piano teachers or tutors I have no problem with, since those generally take place in plainsight of parents. I know that really sucks for the good ones, and most…

Most abuse is by family members/friends. So rather than trusting your husband to drop your kids off in the SUV and worrying about the gym teacher - you would be safer letting them walk with strangers.

In the same way that "most accidents happen within 5 miles of home" is true but wouldn't be true any longer if you intentionally increased the amount of time spent driving farther away, if you made sure your kids hung out with a variety of strangers more often than with people you know, then it wouldn't be true any more than most of their abuse would come from family or friends.

At least, you can't deny that it's possible. In other words, your reasoning is wrong ("So ..."), no matter the actual truth value of your conclusion.

Re: Eek, A Male

#163

Post by kenjackson »

jongraehl wrote: post #161
kenjackson wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 struct…

0-5 year olds are especially at risk (compared to older pre-teens) for sexual abuse from some significant number of sick (mostly male) adults? Or your 6+ year olds will be trained to defend themselves?

I was referring to the belief that 6+ year olds can be taught some things to avoid being exploited. At the very least they might be able to state that something has happened.

Re: Eek, A Male

#164

Post by gaius »

Semiapies wrote: post #83
vacri wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's funny how that works - a brand new article not having much commentry. No such thing as confirmation bias, eh?

Oh, come on - he gave it a full eight minutes before complaining that some girl got more attention in a thread on her post.

Just pointing out that men face real, actual discrimination, whereas actually there is nothing preventing women working IT jobs if they want to.

Re: Eek, A Male

#165

Post by nickluft »

simias wrote: post #81
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #42

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…

In reading about these child abuse cases I was struck by how familiar they sound to the Witch Trials of the 17th Century.

We have prosecutors convinced they have discovered a hidden evil and that it is more widespread than people like to think. They sometimes have children as witnesses. They have false confessions from the accused. And we have bodily investigations of "secrete places" either to confirm that sexual abuse has taken place or the devil "knew" was familiar with the accused. And we have bizarre stories of strange practices, which are credulously believed.

It is like there is some universal process going on here. Communities require these expressions of hidden evils. And if you doubt the veracity of these claims then you are suspect too.

I don't think this paranoia is a new phenomenon to human society. What changes is the topic, but not the underlying need we have in human society for these expressions.

Examples of Witch Trials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Hopkins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Re: Eek, A Male

#166

Post by EliRivers »

sarkozy wrote: post #47
axod wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the 'olden' days, we used to have discipline in schools. So male teachers were extremely useful to have. Bad pupils used to get told off, disciplined, and snapped into line. Now, naughty kids get 'diagnosed' and given a cool label, get a 'teachers assistant' assigned to them - effectively praised for being naughty. I agree with your point about women excelling at empathy and communication, but I'd say the movement…

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

"More men are not needed in childcare/teaching because women are naturally - from birth - better at the type of empathy and communication that is required in those fields."

If you empathise with someone, it is harder to cause them discomfort because it causes you discomfort also. Thus, someone with lesser empathy would be better at discipling children.

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

You can't have it both ways, Sarkozy. Which is it?

Re: Eek, A Male

#167

Post by stonemetal »

chc wrote: post #87
stonemetal wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We were like 20 at the time, and ill-equipped to deal with children on this level, so we probably should have relayed the event to an adult of some sort At 20 you are an adult of some sort, and have been for some time. The only problem I see in the story is you don't act like it.

You are an adult of some sort at 20, but for most people, that sort is "barely."

At 20 I had more than a decade of odd job work experience. It is just funny to see people who have such a different idea of what they are responsible for.

Re: Eek, A Male

#168

Post by lkrubner »

maxawaytoolong wrote: post #33
alexophile wrote: post #24

[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…

Kids aren't stupid and they are mischevious. Little kids in Brooklyn already mess around with older people by yelling "pedo" at them. I've seen more than one dark British comedy where this is a repeated joke. When adults get too neurotic about stuff kids end up using it against them.

By far, the most gruesome example of this was the Salem Witch Trials, which lead to the deaths of 51 innocent people. This was a clear case of children sensing fear in adults and using it against them. The driving force of the murders (for they really were murders) was a few girls in their early teens. Past a certain point, the judge and some of the town elders almost certainly knew that the girls were lying, but none of the adults could afford to appear to be soft about confronting the Devil. Each adult needed to appear, to the other adults, as if they were taking a strong stand against Satan, and the young girls sensed this tension, and manipulated it in gruesome ways.

Re: Eek, A Male

#169

Post by Semiapies »

gaius wrote: post #164
Semiapies wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, come on - he gave it a full eight minutes before complaining that some girl got more attention in a thread on her post.

Just pointing out that men face real, actual discrimination, whereas actually there is nothing preventing women working IT jobs if they want to.

Cry us a river, gaius. If things like this article count as "real, actual discrimination", then pretty much every women-in-tech complaint includes tales of "real, actual discrimination".

Re: Eek, A Male

#170

Post by gaius »

Semiapies wrote: post #169
gaius wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just pointing out that men face real, actual discrimination, whereas actually there is nothing preventing women working IT jobs if they want to.

Cry us a river, gaius. If things like this article count as "real, actual discrimination", then pretty much every women-in-tech complaint includes tales of "real, actual discrimination".

THe article? No. The underlying fact that innocent men are hounded from their jobs by the cops they pay to protect them? Absolutely yes.
Post reply on HN