NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2006/03/23/eddad21.xml&sSheet=/education/2006/03/25/ixteright.html

This may be from early 2006, but it would seem the same applies today. There's certainly still paedophilia hysteria. And if I was the man referred to, I probably wouldn't have helped the child either.

The editor of the story relates opinions in his office and states "women generally thought his a pathetic excuse" (but of course -any man reading this will know why I said "of course" before reading the rest- men were more sympathetic). But if any one of those women had seen a man (who was clearly not related) in a car talking to a kid, or saw a man get out of a car to speak to a kid, I'm willing to bet my life savings that they would be suspicious of him.

And I'm willing to bet my life that if any of the nursery staff (if all female) saw him, they would assume he wanted to harm the child, perhaps abduct her.

If there was a clear problem like a badly bleeding leg, I would help (though I would still be worried) because at least if any woman* confronts me, I can say "you can see her leg's bleeding, I'm trying to help her". But if I stopped to help a two-year-old who was wandering on her own, having no idea where she came from, there's not much I could say to convince a woman* that I'm not a paedophile... "I'm trying to help her" >>What do you mean? She doesn't need any fucking help!<<... "I just wanted to make sure she was O.K." >>When there's nothing wrong with her? Yeh right you fucking sicko<<... "I saw her wandering on her own and wanted to check she was O.K. and try to find her parents" >>More like you wanted to kidnap her you perverted freak<<

*From personal experience, and from what I've seen, read, and heard, women are more likely to read "PAEDO!" into innocent things. This is not sexism, it's FACT - ask your female friends what they would think if they saw a man get out of a car and approach a kid, then ask your male friends.

I'm very protective of children, so chances are I would have stopped to help and then thought about the consequences later. Even so, I find it all too easy to understand the guy's point of view.

I can't blame the poor guy at all.

The fetishization and hysteria about pedophiles is at a genuinely unhealthy pitch.

Poor guy has to have this on his conscience for the rest of his life.

Maybe if the law didn't let paedophiles out of jail after a ridiculously short amount of time, people wouldn't have to worry so much about them being on streets.

I can't blame the poor guy at all.

The fetishization and hysteria about pedophiles is at a genuinely unhealthy pitch.

Poor guy has to have this on his conscience for the rest of his life.

No he doesn't. It's not his fault in any way. It's the nursery's fault, and society's (particularly womens' - see bottom of previous post) fault for making it difficult for him to help the kid. He did nothing wrong in this circumstance. Another circumstance and I may be angry at him, but he did nothing wrong as his worries about being seen as a paedophile were very well founded. Society (specifically women - see previous post, bottom) did something wrong.

Maybe if the law didn't let paedophiles out of jail after a ridiculously short amount of time, people wouldn't have to worry so much about them being on streets.

Paedophile paranoia, like all mass hysteria, is not based not on rational fears but on dickheadedness. Think back to the anti-paedophile riots in 2000, and to this sort of stuff going on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm

I'd just like to say when I was around eight or nine years old and had somehow gotten lost from the rest of my family, some guy (married) in his twenties or thirties took him to his house (it was nearby) and got the police to come and help me find my parents.

But, being a guy myself, I guess I don't count when I say that I see nothing wrong in trying to help a child who seems lost, whether you're a guy or a woman, no matter your age (I'll also note here that I was crying).

Paedophile paranoia, like all mass hysteria, is not based not on rational fears but on dickheadedness. Think back to the anti-paedophile riots in 2000, and to this sort of stuff going on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/848737.stm

That was down to the media. And if paedophiles are locked up, they can't commit more crimes for the media to report.

I probabily wouldnt even notice the kid.

Usually I only notice them when they come running towards me, and I stop because otherwise they would bump into me and fall.

a while ago, I was driving in a car with a friend. He pulled into a gas station to grab something to drink and put a few gallons in the tank.

He left the car parked at the pump and went inside. As he left, another car pulled up and a woman got out and went inside, leaving a young toddler in the car.

I watched as she went in the store, and the child open the door and step out and start to move to the street.

I debated what to do, I figured i could bolt out of the car and grab the kid, but I also recognized, what would people think if they saw a 20something man jump out of his car and grab a child? I started to wonder that if this is what i had to do, if the gas station had securty cameras to validate that the child was loose and I was going after him to save him.

I stepped out of the car and watched the kid, I didn't want to rush in and grab him until I had to, until he was nearing the street. However, the mother (I assume she was), I guess having looked out the store window, realizing the kid was loose, ran paniced out of the store and grabbed him. She must have also seen me, watching him, glancing nervously around, looking if anyone saw us, cautiously fingering something in my jacket pocket (my cellphone, actually, in case I had to call the police). As she grabbed her kid, she started briefly at me, before carrying the kid back into the store. Then my friend came back, we got in the car and left.

To this day, I don't know if she saw me as someone who was ready to save her child, or to kidnap him.

That was down to the media. And if paedophiles are locked up, they can't commit more crimes for the media to report.

Oh, do be quiet. Irresponsible though Rebekah Wade was, if people are so dumb that they start attacking other people because they're a paediatrician (seriously, it happened) then you can hardy say it's entirely down to some squalid little excuse for a newspaper. The News of the Screws only managed to get them worked up because they were idiots to begin with.

Quite a sad state of affairs. A man questioning whether or not to do the right thing because he is afraid of being accosted or even arrested. Why does everyone assume that because a man shows some kind sentiment towards a child that he is simply trying to "abduct" them? Can't a man be caring? Or are we all just sexual beasts, unable to control our urges to ravage the innocent?

I don't give a fuck what someone would think, if I saw a child in danger in some way, and no one else would help, I would step up. It is the human thing to do.

You know what...why don't we start questioning every woman who comes into a hospital with a sick child? Since most Munchausen by Proxy perpetrators are women, we must assume that ALL women who show care to children are only doing it so they may harm them and recieve attention.

...Does this make sense?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2006/03/23/eddad21.xml&sSheet=/education/2006/03/25/ixteright.html

This may be from early 2006, but it would seem the same applies today. There's certainly still paedophilia hysteria. And if I was the man referred to, I probably wouldn't have helped the child either.

The editor of the story relates opinions in his office and states "women generally thought his a pathetic excuse" (but of course -any man reading this will know why I said "of course" before reading the rest- men were more sympathetic). But if any one of those women had seen a man (who was clearly not related) in a car talking to a kid, or saw a man get out of a car to speak to a kid, I'm willing to bet my life savings that they would be suspicious of him.

And I'm willing to bet my life that if any of the nursery staff (if all female) saw him, they would assume he wanted to harm the child, perhaps abduct her.

If there was a clear problem like a badly bleeding leg, I would help (though I would still be worried) because at least if any woman* confronts me, I can say "you can see her leg's bleeding, I'm trying to help her". But if I stopped to help a two-year-old who was wandering on her own, having no idea where she came from, there's not much I could say to convince a woman* that I'm not a paedophile... "I'm trying to help her" >>What do you mean? She doesn't need any fucking help!<<... "I just wanted to make sure she was O.K." >>When there's nothing wrong with her? Yeh right you fucking sicko<<... "I saw her wandering on her own and wanted to check she was O.K. and try to find her parents" >>More like you wanted to kidnap her you perverted freak<<

*From personal experience, and from what I've seen, read, and heard, women are more likely to read "PAEDO!" into innocent things. This is not sexism, it's FACT - ask your female friends what they would think if they saw a man get out of a car and approach a kid, then ask your male friends.

There's gotta be a gene that can be weeded out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2006/03/23/eddad21.xml&sSheet=/education/2006/03/25/ixteright.html

This may be from early 2006, but it would seem the same applies today. There's certainly still paedophilia hysteria. And if I was the man referred to, I probably wouldn't have helped the child either.

Then I hope you never have children. You obviously aren't a responsible enough person to do what is best for them.

The editor of the story relates opinions in his office and states "women generally thought his a pathetic excuse" (but of course -any man reading this will know why I said "of course" before reading the rest- men were more sympathetic). But if any one of those women had seen a man (who was clearly not related) in a car talking to a kid, or saw a man get out of a car to speak to a kid, I'm willing to bet my life savings that they would be suspicious of him.

Why? I think his excuse is pathetic. I know he has to live with this for the rest of his life, so I do feel bad for him, but I also think that he brought that burden upon himself. You don't see a toddler wandering alone along a street and simply keep driving - I don't care who you are.

And I'm willing to bet my life that if any of the nursery staff (if all female) saw him, they would assume he wanted to harm the child, perhaps abduct her.

Why do you have such a low opinion of women?

Believe it or not, most women do not have such a low opinion of men that they would assume any man who tries to help/comfort/take care of a child is a pedophile looking to harm them. And as for those in society who do, it cannot simply be blamed upon women. Both men and women have contributed for generations to the assigned gender roles we see today. Women are "supposed to" have a "motherly instinct" that leads them to take care of children, even if not their own. Men are "supposed to" be uninterested in children, even their own. They have always been bullshit stereotypes, but they have shaped the way both look at childcare. And, because this man's thinking had obviously been stunted by such stereotypes, a little girl who might have been returned safely to those responsible for her is dead.

I wouldn't. Being accused and acquitted will still screw you over the rest of your life. Screw that, I'm not going anywhere near the situation.

Believe it or not, most women do not have such a low opinion of men that they would assume any man who tries to help/comfort/take care of a child is a pedophile looking to harm them. And as for those in society who do, it cannot simply be blamed upon women. Both men and women have contributed for generations to the assigned gender roles we see today. Women are "supposed to" have a "motherly instinct" that leads them to take care of children, even if not their own. Men are "supposed to" be uninterested in children, even their own. They have always been bullshit stereotypes, but they have shaped the way both look at childcare. And, because this man's thinking had obviously been stunted by such stereotypes, a little girl who might have been returned safely to those responsible for her is dead.

That is a very concise way of putting it. Perhaps if everyone integrated a bit of logic and common sense into their thinking we could have avoided such paranoia.

But, forgive the cynicism...people as a whole aren't known for logic.

That is a very concise way of putting it. Perhaps if everyone integrated a bit of logic and common sense into their thinking we could have avoided such paranoia.

But, forgive the cynicism...people as a whole aren't known for logic.

Indeed, perhaps if pigs flew, we wouldn't need fossil fuels to get around

Why? I think his excuse is pathetic. I know he has to live with this for the rest of his life, so I do feel bad for him, but I also think that he brought that burden upon himself. You don't see a toddler wandering alone along a street and simply keep driving - I don't care who you are.
I'm not sure I agree. Actually, I'm certain I don't.
Knowing that you did the right thing is going to be small comfort when you're arrested for it on the assumption that you're a paedophile. Even if you're released, simply being falsely accused will probably wind up with unpleasant consequences.

Why do you have such a low opinion of women?
Obviously I can't speak for Multiland, but it's not women particularly; people in general. They're so paranoid about paedophiles because of all the fuss kicked up by newspapers... If a man went to the aid of an apparently lost and confused child and the kid's father saw him... Well, he'd better hope that he's not smaller and slower than the father.

I go for walks around the local park most lunchtimes, and if I see children, with or without adults, I go out of my way to avoid them, simply because I don't want any fuss. People probably think I'm enough of a weirdo because I walk around the park alone, without a dog, so I don't need them accusing me of child molestation too.
Funny really. About twenty years ago, when I was a young kid, I got in a spot of bother at the seaside and couldn't stand up to get out of the sea. If a random bloke hadn't noticed and pulled me up I'd've probably drowned. Wouldn't be surprised if the same man wouldn't've done it today; touching a kid in his swimming trunks? Blatant paedo, guv'nor, lock 'im up!

Funny really. About twenty years ago, when I was a young kid, I got in a spot of bother at the seaside and couldn't stand up to get out of the sea. If a random bloke hadn't noticed and pulled me up I'd've probably drowned. Wouldn't be surprised if the same man wouldn't've done it today; touching a kid in his swimming trunks? Blatant paedo, guv'nor, lock 'im up!

Im reminded of a story where some kings/emperors/whatevers attendants wouldnt risk touching him to save him from drowning.

theres a story from cold war berlin of british soldiers refusing to save a drowning toddler because the canal it fell in was part of the borderline between west/east.

The bottom line is the public hysteria has got to be brought under control. The media love it because it's a surefire moneymaker. Run a story on online predators or kidnappers at arcades and you'll have a guaranteed audience who will watch if, for no other reason, they feel like they're supposed to.

Be assured, the media does NOT do this as a way of helping out society.

I'm not sure I agree. Actually, I'm certain I don't.
Knowing that you did the right thing is going to be small comfort when you're arrested for it on the assumption that you're a paedophile. Even if you're released, simply being falsely accused will probably wind up with unpleasant consequences.

But, unless the girl's caretakers were right there and you snatched her, the chances that you'll even be accused are so tiny as to be pretty much irrelevant.

Of course, if I had to choose between a child dying and me going to jail, I'd choose going to jail in a heartbeat. How selfish can someone be to care more about the small chance that they might be accused of inappropriate behavior than the life of a child?

Obviously I can't speak for Multiland, but it's not women particularly; people in general. They're so paranoid about paedophiles because of all the fuss kicked up by newspapers... If a man went to the aid of an apparently lost and confused child and the kid's father saw him... Well, he'd better hope that he's not smaller and slower than the father.

So you think all people in general will immediately jump to the pedophile conclusion. That's even worse. You don't just have a low opinion of women - like Multiland clearly does - but a astronomically low opinion of all human beings. I've been around plenty of people with children. I've never seen anything like the paranoia you guys are describing. Sure, if someone who didn't know a child walked up to that child and started trying to give them candy or something, I'd be suspicious. But I wouldn't be suspicious of anyone I saw approach an apparently lost child. In fact, I'd probably be the one doing it.

I go for walks around the local park most lunchtimes, and if I see children, with or without adults, I go out of my way to avoid them, simply because I don't want any fuss. People probably think I'm enough of a weirdo because I walk around the park alone, without a dog, so I don't need them accusing me of child molestation too.

People probably think you hate children. In fact, the idea that you go out of your way to avoid them would suggest worse things to me quicker than simply going about your business. Why would you have to avoid children if you didn't either have an extreme distaste for them or know that you were a danger to them?

Funny really. About twenty years ago, when I was a young kid, I got in a spot of bother at the seaside and couldn't stand up to get out of the sea. If a random bloke hadn't noticed and pulled me up I'd've probably drowned. Wouldn't be surprised if the same man wouldn't've done it today; touching a kid in his swimming trunks? Blatant paedo, guv'nor, lock 'im up!

That man did precisely what he should have done. He helped a young child who needed help. And anyone who would accuse him of inappropriate behavior for doing so should be locked up.

a while ago, I was driving in a car with a friend. He pulled into a gas station to grab something to drink and put a few gallons in the tank.

He left the car parked at the pump and went inside. As he left, another car pulled up and a woman got out and went inside, leaving a young toddler in the car.

I watched as she went in the store, and the child open the door and step out and start to move to the street.

I debated what to do, I figured i could bolt out of the car and grab the kid, but I also recognized, what would people think if they saw a 20something man jump out of his car and grab a child? I started to wonder that if this is what i had to do, if the gas station had securty cameras to validate that the child was loose and I was going after him to save him.

I stepped out of the car and watched the kid, I didn't want to rush in and grab him until I had to, until he was nearing the street. However, the mother (I assume she was), I guess having looked out the store window, realizing the kid was loose, ran paniced out of the store and grabbed him. She must have also seen me, watching him, glancing nervously around, looking if anyone saw us, cautiously fingering something in my jacket pocket (my cellphone, actually, in case I had to call the police). As she grabbed her kid, she started briefly at me, before carrying the kid back into the store. Then my friend came back, we got in the car and left.

To this day, I don't know if she saw me as someone who was ready to save her child, or to kidnap him.

had a very similar experience myself, I wasn't sure what to do, but I kept an eye on the kid in case I had to act fast, mom found her though....twice I actually helped a lost toddler but my wife was with me so it wasn't the same situation...I'm sure many other men have the same concerns....

The bottom line is the public hysteria has got to be brought under control. The media love it because it's a surefire moneymaker. Run a story on online predators or kidnappers at arcades and you'll have a guaranteed audience who will watch if, for no other reason, they feel like they're supposed to.

Be assured, the media does NOT do this as a way of helping out society.

I don't think we can blame the media for this one. I blame the few idiots out there who actually hold these attitudes - who actually think that men should not care about children and that, if they do, it must be something inappropriate and that women are automagically harmless to children. It is the sexist assholes out there that we have to worry about, not the media.

Note: We also have to worry about all the people who are so paranoid about the sexist assholes that they give in to the stereotype. It means that children in general are altogether less safe, as such people simply won't look out for them.

I went down to New Jersey with my wife and 3 year old daughter a few weeks ago to visit some of our college buddies. One morning my wife was sick and stayed in bed all day, our friends had to go to work, so my daughter and i went for a walk.
We saw a park and she wanted to play there. I sat on a bench while she played. About 30 minutes later she fell and was crying, i ran to her like any father would. I picked her up, made sure she had no serious injuries and i gave her a hug. She wanted to go home so we started to walk away.
Two women start running towards me and without a word unload a can of pepper spray each into my eyes. One of them calls the cops while i'm rolling around on the ground in pain.
I tryed to tell them i was the father of the daughter, they didn't believe me. Even though my daughter was crying and calling me daddy. The police came and arrested me. My wife had to come down and show ID to prove i'm the father.
All this happened because i ran to the aid of my daughter. So please don't tell me most women don't discriminate against an unknown man being near a child.

I wouldn't. Being accused and acquitted will still screw you over the rest of your life. Screw that, I'm not going anywhere near the situation.

yup...it has happened

if you're accused the media will ensure that everyone is convinced you're a paedo...if acquitted the media will lose interest and very few will remember you were innocent., there will always be a doubt among the public.....

I recall perhaps a dozen years ago a school custodian was accused of molesting 3 girls, jailed, wife left him,family breakup, life ruined....later two of the girls come forward and admit the third put them up to it...

And anyone who would accuse him of inappropriate behavior for doing so should be locked up.

I'm sure we all agree with you on this. Point of contention, those people aren't locked up. We are.

I went down to New Jersey with my wife and 3 year old daughter a few weeks ago to visit some of our college buddies. One morning my wife was sick and stayed in bed all day, our friends had to go to work, so my daughter and i went for a walk.
We saw a park and she wanted to play there. I sat on a bench while she played. About 30 minutes later she fell and was crying, i ran to her like any father would. I picked her up, made sure she had no serious injuries and i gave her a hug. She wanted to go home so we started to walk away.
Two women start running towards me and without a word unload a can of pepper spray each into my eyes. One of them calls the cops while i'm rolling around on the ground in pain.
I tryed to tell them i was the father of the daughter, they didn't believe me. Even though my daughter was crying and calling me daddy. The police came and arrested me. My wife had to come down and show ID to prove i'm the father.
All this happened because i ran to the aid of my daughter. So please don't tell me most women don't discriminate against an unknown man being near a child.

Two women represent "most women." Wow, aren't we sexist today?

I suppose that next you'll tell me you know someone who was mugged by a black men, so all black men are thugs and thieves?


I'm sure we all agree with you on this. Point of contention, those people aren't locked up. We are.

I seriously doubt that this happens all the time. Meanwhile, if that is the case, then you should be fighting against it, not sitting back and leaving children to the wolves because you're scared. Every time a man gives in to this sort of stereotype, the stereotype itself is strengthened. After all, if all those other men didn't care about a child, obviously it means that there is something wrong with the one who did, right? What we need is more men acting on their impulses to help children, not less.

All this happened because i ran to the aid of my daughter. So please don't tell me most women don't discriminate against an unknown man being near a child.

That's not an uncommon thing. You expose yourself to extreme liability going anywhere near a child that isn't yours, and as you've described, even if the child is yours, you run risks in public. A "good samaritan" is the greatest sucker in the eyes of our legal system. Short of having a leg stuck in a bear trap, it's legal suicide to approach a child for any reason.

However, I do object to the fear of pedophilia being labeled "hysteria." The numbers do not lie when they show that child sexual abuse is an everyday occurrence. I know from talking to divorce lawyers that a woman will often invent a story of sexual abuse at a custody hearing to give herself the advantage, but the legitimate cases of abuse outnumber the fabricated, I'm sure. The unfortunate result is that parents cannot reasonably rely on the help of strangers in controlling their children, but if that fact convinces some to take their responsibility more seriously, it may ultimately result in some benefit to children. Parents need to be alert, plain and simple.

Quick question for you, Dempublicents1. Gender?

Quick question for you, Dempublicents1. Gender?

Wow, I thought everyone knew me around here. hehe

I'm a woman - one who doesn't automatically assume that either men or women are evil right off the bat.

I went down to New Jersey with my wife and 3 year old daughter a few weeks ago to visit some of our college buddies. One morning my wife was sick and stayed in bed all day, our friends had to go to work, so my daughter and i went for a walk.
We saw a park and she wanted to play there. I sat on a bench while she played. About 30 minutes later she fell and was crying, i ran to her like any father would. I picked her up, made sure she had no serious injuries and i gave her a hug. She wanted to go home so we started to walk away.
Two women start running towards me and without a word unload a can of pepper spray each into my eyes. One of them calls the cops while i'm rolling around on the ground in pain.
I tryed to tell them i was the father of the daughter, they didn't believe me. Even though my daughter was crying and calling me daddy. The police came and arrested me. My wife had to come down and show ID to prove i'm the father.
All this happened because i ran to the aid of my daughter. So please don't tell me most women don't discriminate against an unknown man being near a child.

so why didn't you press assault charges against the two women?

I know from talking to divorce lawyers that a woman will often invent a story of sexual abuse at a custody hearing to give herself the advantage, but the legitimate cases of abuse outnumber the fabricated, I'm sure.

I can confirm that, my niece the lawyer was practicing divorce law....she quit being a lawyer because she couldn't handle all the lying but it was her job to represent her client even if she it was all lies....she went back to being a lawyer, Corporate Law professional liars....

law trivia(may not be true).....the Inuit never had a need for lawyers so never had a name for describing their jobs....the name they came up means "man who lies for you"....

Guys, lets stop fighting.

Why don't we all just blame this on the media and call it a day, alright? Aye, also a generalization, but really, "pedophile witch hunts", the hype over the "bombs" in Boston, CELEBRITY NEWS(!!!), shameless media hype has been a BIG factor.


And lets not forget "White Woman in Peril Syndrome"!













It is the only sensible conclusion.

I went down to New Jersey with my wife and 3 year old daughter a few weeks ago to visit some of our college buddies. One morning my wife was sick and stayed in bed all day, our friends had to go to work, so my daughter and i went for a walk.
We saw a park and she wanted to play there. I sat on a bench while she played. About 30 minutes later she fell and was crying, i ran to her like any father would. I picked her up, made sure she had no serious injuries and i gave her a hug. She wanted to go home so we started to walk away.
Two women start running towards me and without a word unload a can of pepper spray each into my eyes. One of them calls the cops while i'm rolling around on the ground in pain.
I tryed to tell them i was the father of the daughter, they didn't believe me. Even though my daughter was crying and calling me daddy. The police came and arrested me. My wife had to come down and show ID to prove i'm the father.
All this happened because i ran to the aid of my daughter. So please don't tell me most women don't discriminate against an unknown man being near a child.

:mad:

I hope you pressed charges against those women, and I hope you lawyer up for the physical pain they caused you.

Wow, I thought everyone knew me around here. hehe

I'm a woman - one who doesn't automatically assume that either men or women are evil right off the bat.

I had a hunch you were. That's why I asked.

I'm going to go ahead and just say it. You don't understand. You're not a man...you've never been in some of the situations being described here. And you're not willing to even try to understand. Instead, it seems you've interpreted this thread's original message totally incorrectly. This isn't some veiled attack on women, dude, however hard you try to make it out to be. Here's the bottom line.

You're a woman. You're out jogging, and way up ahead, about a hundred feet in front of you, there's a toddler wandering up the road. Alone. A car pulls up next to him, and a man gets out. They talk. The man opens his door and puts the child in his front car seat.

In actuality, the child is lost and the man has stopped to help. He's asked the kid where he lives and the kid starts crying. The man decides he's going to put the kid in his car and call the police. Maybe they can find the kid's parents.

You're the woman. You don't hear the exchange of words. What you see is a real young kid walking all by themself, and now some strange man is talking to them. The kid starts crying. The man puts the kid in the car. Nothing about that seems strange to you? Out of the ordinary? Maybe the man doesn't call the police, and instead drives back up the road to look for somebody. Instead, you call the police, tell them what you've seen.

The police stop the man, and now all of a sudden he's got all these questions he's got to answer. How do the parents know their kid wandered off and wasn't abducted? It turns into a mess. Does that really sound like an unlikely scenario to you? Sounds like the one that may have played out in the story, had the man interfered.

What's wrong about a lone man stopping to help a child? Number one, nobody's gonna know you're helping them. Number two, you're a man. The fact of the matter is, there are more male pedophiles than there are female pedophiles. How many chick ped stories do you hear? They're out there, for sure, but are they as common? Whether you'e a dude or a chick, if you see a strange man talking to your child, you're going to get suspicious. That's society. It's not sexism.

I had a hunch you were. That's why I asked.

I'm going to go ahead and just say it. You don't understand. You're not a man...you've never been in some of the situations being described here.

Men and women both have to deal with the consequences of the gender stereotypes that abound in our society. There is no point turning this into some battle of the sexes. I simply don't have the kind of poor opinion of people in general being espoused here. I don't think that most people are sexist assholes. Sorry.

And you're not willing to even try to understand.

I understand fear. I understand stereotypes. And I also understand that neither is an excuse for not helping a child in need.

If you mean I don't understand putting your own fears that someone might accuse you of inappropriate action before the welfare of a child, you're right - I don't understand. Nor do I want to. Doing so is not only disgusting to me, but it also does nothing but exacerbate the problem you guys are all ranting about by feeding the stereotype.

Instead, it seems you've interpreted this thread's original message totally incorrectly. This isn't some veiled attack on women, dude, however hard you try to make it out to be. Here's the bottom line.

Did you read the original post? It is clear that the man who wrote it has a very poor opinion of women in general. He thinks that we are all sexist pigs.

You're a woman. You're out jogging, and way up ahead, about a hundred feet in front of you, there's a toddler wandering up the road. Alone. A car pulls up next to him, and a man gets out. They talk. The man opens his door and puts the child in his front car seat.

In actuality, the child is lost and the man has stopped to help. He's asked the kid where he lives and the kid starts crying. The man decides he's going to put the kid in his car and call the police. Maybe they can find the kid's parents.

You're the woman. You don't hear the exchange of words. What you see is a real young kid walking all by themself, and now some strange man is talking to them. The kid starts crying. The man puts the kid in the car. Nothing about that seems strange to you? Out of the ordinary? Maybe the man doesn't call the police, and instead drives back up the road to look for somebody. Instead, you call the police, tell them what you've seen.

Nothing seems any more out of the ordinary than the same situation with a woman. If it doesn't appear that the child recognizes the adult in question or feels safe with them, I'm going to be suspicious of anyone who attempts to pick that child up and place them in a car. The proper action in this case would be to get help without scaring the child further. A strange adult picking up a scared child and putting them in the car without even knowing where to take them isn't going to help things. If anything, it's just going to terrify the child further. Meanwhile, if I can see all of this, he can see me. If he doesn't have a cell phone (unlikely, these days), he could wait for me to arrive to stay with the child, and then go for help.

The police stop the man, and now all of a sudden he's got all these questions he's got to answer. How do the parents know their kid wandered off and wasn't abducted? It turns into a mess. Does that really sound like an unlikely scenario to you? Sounds like the one that may have played out in the story, had the man interfered.

And the man would have explained the situation. Barring any evidence otherwise, any reasonable person would have believed him. And that little girl would still be alive.

What's wrong about a lone man stopping to help a child? Number one, nobody's gonna know you're helping them.

Same is true for a woman, but that doesn't make it wrong. If a child needs help, a child needs help. If explanations to another concerned person are then necessary, then they are necessary.

Number two, you're a man.

Irrelevant.

The fact of the matter is, there are more male pedophiles than there are female pedophiles. How many chick ped stories do you hear? They're out there, for sure, but are they as common? Whether you'e a dude or a chick, if you see a strange man talking to your child, you're going to get suspicious. That's society. It's not sexism.

There are more male serial killers than female serial killers, but I don't assume that every man I meet is thinking about killing me and keeping my head in his fridge. There are more male rapists than female rapists, but I don't assume every man I meet is going to rape me. If I acted as if all men were rapists, I'm quite certain you'd call me sexist. But you think I should act as if all men are child molesters?

The minute you start applying statistical trends to a population as a whole, rather than dealing with the individual, you are being sexist. When a woman is turned down for a job because most of the people who qualify are men, rather than on her own merits, that is sexism. Likewise, when a man is treated a certain way because most [insert category] here are male, rather than being seen as an individual, that is sexism.

So, yes, it is sexist to suspect a strange man who is talking to your child any more than a strange woman who is doing so. Either could be looking to abduct or otherwise victimize the child. But the most likely situation is that either is simply trying to help.

I had a hunch you were. That's why I asked.

I'm going to go ahead and just say it. You don't understand. You're not a man...you've never been in some of the situations being described here. And you're not willing to even try to understand. Instead, it seems you've interpreted this thread's original message totally incorrectly. This isn't some veiled attack on women, dude, however hard you try to make it out to be. Here's the bottom line.

You're a woman. You're out jogging, and way up ahead, about a hundred feet in front of you, there's a toddler wandering up the road. Alone. A car pulls up next to him, and a man gets out. They talk. The man opens his door and puts the child in his front car seat.

In actuality, the child is lost and the man has stopped to help. He's asked the kid where he lives and the kid starts crying. The man decides he's going to put the kid in his car and call the police. Maybe they can find the kid's parents.

You're the woman. You don't hear the exchange of words. What you see is a real young kid walking all by themself, and now some strange man is talking to them. The kid starts crying. The man puts the kid in the car. Nothing about that seems strange to you? Out of the ordinary? Maybe the man doesn't call the police, and instead drives back up the road to look for somebody. Instead, you call the police, tell them what you've seen.

The police stop the man, and now all of a sudden he's got all these questions he's got to answer. How do the parents know their kid wandered off and wasn't abducted? It turns into a mess. Does that really sound like an unlikely scenario to you? Sounds like the one that may have played out in the story, had the man interfered.

What's wrong about a lone man stopping to help a child? Number one, nobody's gonna know you're helping them. Number two, you're a man. The fact of the matter is, there are more male pedophiles than there are female pedophiles. How many chick ped stories do you hear? They're out there, for sure, but are they as common? Whether you'e a dude or a chick, if you see a strange man talking to your child, you're going to get suspicious. That's society. It's not sexism.

I like to think that I am a follower of the rule "When you assume, you make an ass out of you and me". In many cases you cannot make good assumptions. There are always exceptions to the rule.

However, there is also another very important rule: "Better Safe than Sorry". Doing nothing may lead to a tragic situation. The woman in the situation obviously had that idea in her head, even if it was based on an assumption from a stereotype.

So what is the best course of action? In my opinion...there isn't. Life ain't that simple unfortunately.

:mad:

I hope you pressed charges against those women, and I hope you lawyer up for the physical pain they caused you.

Heh.. that's not how it works. Defense of a third party is a valid legal position, and the circumstances are always going to favor the women in a situation like he described. It'd be a waste of time and money, especially money, to even try to get a judgment against them.

More on my point on the media. Do you think such assumptions could be avoided if news organizations reported on more lost or in-danger children helped out by a stranger, rather than all the kidnappings?

Not all news is negative after all...

Heh.. that's not how it works. Defense of a third party is a valid legal position, and the circumstances are always going to favor the women in a situation like he described. It'd be a waste of time and money, especially money, to even try to get a judgment against them.

forget about civil action it's a criminal matter, the police should have charged the women....if a man had done the same he would have been arrested....

forget about civil action it's a criminal matter, the police should have charged the women....if a man had done the same he would have been arrested....

No question a man would've been charged. But you have to deal with the reality, not the hornbook fantasy some people seem to believe exists. Civil or criminal, I'd be shocked if, assuming the accuracy of the story, there would ever be a successful case presented.

Heh.. that's not how it works. Defense of a third party is a valid legal position, and the circumstances are always going to favor the women in a situation like he described. It'd be a waste of time and money, especially money, to even try to get a judgment against them.

It seems rather pointless to sit back and bitch about a situation when you are against any attempt to change it.

If I see two people talking, and for some odd reason I think one of them is harming the other, I can't just walk up and assault one of them and claim that I was defending the other. I have to have a good reason to believe that someone is being harmed, and my actions have to be tailored to the situation. For instance, if someone is hitting another, I can physically restrain them to stop the harm, but I can't pull out a gun and shoot them if they have no weapon unless I can back up, in court, my belief that it was the only way to stop it.

Even if these women thought that the man was doing something inappropriate, they could never provide any sort of rational explanation for their actions that would stand up to any reasonable scrutiny. As such, an assault case is a very reasonable action to take - one that would have likely brought this case to the public eye. To be sure, any damages that were awarded would be much less than a situation in which the assault was completely random, but they would likely be there nonetheless.

And, if the judge in the case was sexist and somehow ruled in the favor of those who committed the assault, that would be a failure of the justice system - one that would need to be brought to the public eye.

More on my point on the media. Do you think such assumptions could be avoided if news organizations reported on more lost or in-danger children helped out by a stranger, rather than all the kidnappings?

Not all news is negative after all...

Yes (and I have seen such stories in the media, btw). Of course, there won't be any such stories to report if people walk on by because they are afraid some accusation might get made.


No question a man would've been charged. But you have to deal with the reality, not the hornbook fantasy some people seem to believe exists. Civil or criminal, I'd be shocked if, assuming the accuracy of the story, there would ever be a successful case presented.

If there is something wrong with the reality of our society, then the proper action to take is to do something to change it. Not sit back and bitch about it. If you aren't willing to take such action - to fight what you see as an unjust situation - then you are in no position to complain about it.

And if you just sit at home and say, "Oh, my case likely won't work out, so I'm not even going to try it," you are doing absolutely nothing but allowing the system to mistreat you.

Heh.. that's not how it works. Defense of a third party is a valid legal position, and the circumstances are always going to favor the women in a situation like he described. It'd be a waste of time and money, especially money, to even try to get a judgment against them.

In defending a third party, doesn't it have to be shown that there was some threat (physical or mental) to the third party first?

Also, a first consultation with a lawyer is usually free.

I sympathize, I really sympathize.

This points to three major problems with our society-
(1) Pervasive Media Induced Hysteria
(2) Rigid Gender Roles
(3) The Cultivation of the Private, Atomized, Self-Interested Individual

I don't know what to do about the media, but the other two we can try to fight off. Still, it's hard.

Yesterday I was sitting in the library and I heard someone crying. If it had been a friend, I would have gone to see if he or she was okay. But it's someone I don't know (I assume), it's not any of my business, and they may want their privacy. And the clincher in my decision not to see if whoever it was is okay? Social pressure: I notice that the library is crowded, and no one else is paying any attention.

At the same time, though, if I was crying, and another student came up to me to see if I was okay, I'd be touched. So by the Golden Rule, I should have gone to see, but I didn't.

If there is something wrong with the reality of our society, then the proper action to take is to do something to change it. Not sit back and bitch about it. If you aren't willing to take such action - to fight what you see as an unjust situation - then you are in no position to complain about it.

And if you just sit at home and say, "Oh, my case likely won't work out, so I'm not even going to try it," you are doing absolutely nothing but allowing the system to mistreat you.

I'm not condemning the system as a whole. It works for the most part. As long as you know where the pitfalls are, you can avoid them. There is ample evidence that child sexual abuse is widespread. The reality is that if you aren't careful, the institutions meant to protect the weak can backfire on you. This isn't to say that those institutions are wrong or unjust or ineffective, only that the cogs of justice can smash your hand if you reach in unnecessarily.

We have a constitutional right to keep out of others' affairs, even when there may be harm done to a child. I'm only arguing in favor of the existence of that right. The proper response, in my opinion, to the case given by the OP would be to call police. It would be foolish to think that interefering personally would be legally wise, but if you had no dependent children or family, perhaps that liability would be acceptable to you.

But, unless the girl's caretakers were right there and you snatched her, the chances that you'll even be accused are so tiny as to be pretty much irrelevant.

Of course, if I had to choose between a child dying and me going to jail, I'd choose going to jail in a heartbeat. How selfish can someone be to care more about the small chance that they might be accused of inappropriate behavior than the life of a child?
If I thought the chances were vanishingly low we wouldn't be having this discussion :)

Yeah, I don't think that many of us, if we saw a kid in obvious significant danger, would leave it to its fate. But I'd count myself very lucky if I wasn't answering (in vain, probably) awkward questions afterwards.

So you think all people in general will immediately jump to the pedophile conclusion. That's even worse. You don't just have a low opinion of women - like Multiland clearly does - but a astronomically low opinion of all human beings. I've been around plenty of people with children. I've never seen anything like the paranoia you guys are describing. Sure, if someone who didn't know a child walked up to that child and started trying to give them candy or something, I'd be suspicious. But I wouldn't be suspicious of anyone I saw approach an apparently lost child. In fact, I'd probably be the one doing it.
I do tend to assume the worst in people, yes, but as you can see from the thread it's not just my paranoid delusions at work here.

I agree with you that the paranoia (on both sides, really) is silly. But people don't really think about emotional things calmly and rationally, do they? I've done it before myself. I'd bet that the actual number of cases of child sexual abuse or kidnapping by unknown third parties is very small (I tried to find numbers quickly, and failed - that's probably half the problem right there); probably much smaller than mundane problems like getting run over, or whatever. But kids getting hit by cars is boring, and rarely has potential for the driver to be presented as an evil, sub-human predatory monster.

People probably think you hate children. In fact, the idea that you go out of your way to avoid them would suggest worse things to me quicker than simply going about your business. Why would you have to avoid children if you didn't either have an extreme distaste for them or know that you were a danger to them?
Yeah, I'm not overly fond of them to be honest. And whilst I'm no malicious risk, I'm aware that I could hurt them accidentally (I'm quite large and unobservant; I've accidentally knocked people over when I've not seen them before, so I'm careful around anyone much smaller than me). So, coupled with not wanting to be pestered by over-protective paranoid parents, we keep out of the way.

That man did precisely what he should have done. He helped a young child who needed help. And anyone who would accuse him of inappropriate behavior for doing so should be locked up.
I quite agree. And, whilst my memory is understandably vague, I think he was thanked for his assistance.

Ultimately I agree with you, but I'm not going to risk myself even getting falsely accused of anything like that without significant reason. Because most people don't work on innocent-until-proven-guilty. No smoke without fire, after all...

In defending a third party, doesn't it have to be shown that there was some threat (physical or mental) to the third party first?

Also, a first consultation with a lawyer is usually free.

It has to be shown that the defender would reasonably believe that the third party was in danger. It also has to be shown that the action taken was appropriate - even in a self-defense case, rather than defense of a third party. Escalation of violence can destroy a self-defense case.


I'm not condemning the system as a whole. It works for the most part.

If the system itself is sexist, it needs to be condemned - and changed.

As long as you know where the pitfalls are, you can avoid them.

Sure, by allowing a child to go to her death.

There is ample evidence that child sexual abuse is widespread.

There is also evidence that such abuse is nearly always carried out by someone who the child knows well.

The reality is that if you aren't careful, the institutions meant to protect the weak can backfire on you. This isn't to say that those institutions are wrong or unjust or ineffective, only that the cogs of justice can smash your hand if you reach in unnecessarily.

It isn't justice if you get "smashed" for trying to help a child.

We have a constitutional right to keep out of others' affairs, even when there may be harm done to a child. I'm only arguing in favor of the existence of that right.

Huh? Has someone been pushing for it to be illegal to be a selfish bastard who lets a child die?

You have a constitutional right to be an asshole, but I wouldn't condone it. You have a constitutional right to do nothing when a child needs help, but I'll think you're an asshole worthy of contempt.

The proper response, in my opinion, to the case given by the OP would be to call police. It would be foolish to think that interefering personally would be legally wise, but if you had no dependent children or family, perhaps that liability would be acceptable to you.

Great, so you call the police and, by the time they get there, she's already wandered into the pond. The appropriate action would have been to get the child's attention and see if you could find out where her caretakers were. If you couldn't (or even if you could), you should then call either the caretakers or the police, and stay with the child until they arrive.

Have you ever seen a child get lost in a department store? The clerks generally don't just make an announcement of, "Child loose in store," and then go about their business. Instead, they ask the child for his name and parent's names. They will then stay with the child while paging the parents to come and get the child. Something very similar could have been done here.


If I thought the chances were vanishingly low we wouldn't be having this discussion

Do you have numbers that make you think otherwise? Or the existence of a few stories that make you think it happens every time a man tries to help a child?

Yeah, I don't think that many of us, if we saw a kid in obvious significant danger, would leave it to its fate. But I'd count myself very lucky if I wasn't answering (in vain, probably) awkward questions afterwards.

As would I. But I wouldn't care. A little discomfort is well worth it for the welfare of a child.

I do tend to assume the worst in people, yes, but as you can see from the thread it's not just my paranoid delusions at work here.

What I see from the thread is exactly what is being complained about. I see (mostly) men bitching that they don't want to be stereotyped with child molesters by stereotyping all women (or even all people) as sexist assholes who would assume the worst in them.

Fighting fire with fire rarely works.

I agree with you that the paranoia (on both sides, really) is silly. But people don't really think about emotional things calmly and rationally, do they? I've done it before myself. I'd bet that the actual number of cases of child sexual abuse or kidnapping by unknown third parties is very small (I tried to find numbers quickly, and failed - that's probably half the problem right there); probably much smaller than mundane problems like getting run over, or whatever. But kids getting hit by cars is boring, and rarely has potential for the driver to be presented as an evil, sub-human predatory monster.

Look for the numbers in a different way. There are numerous studies concluding that sexual abuse/kidnapping/etc. are nearly always carried out by someone the child knows - usually a family member, caretaker, or family friend.

Ultimately I agree with you, but I'm not going to risk myself even getting falsely accused of anything like that without significant reason. Because most people don't work on innocent-until-proven-guilty. No smoke without fire, after all...

You don't think a two-year old wandering alone is a "significant reason"? Hell, what does it take to be significant?

If the system itself is sexist, it needs to be condemned - and changed.

Lawmakers cannot reasonably forsee every possible application of the law they pass. The result is that certain behavior can be interpreted in more than one way. I see no moral conflict in making informed decisions based on that fact.

There is also evidence that such abuse is nearly always carried out by someone who the child knows well.

Move that situation into a public place and we're back to square one. Sexual abuse in someone's home isn't something you're likely to discover as a disinterested party. Teachers are legally obligated to report bruises, etc., as they should be. No disagreement there - the likelihood for having to deal with any major crisis is low.. moral luck exists.

It isn't justice if you get "smashed" for trying to help a child.

The fact that it occurs, even within a mostly-just system, is reason enough to learn to navigate around it. Taking appropriate action involves an appreciation for the likely consequences. Again, laws are seldom so explicit and narrow that no conflicts or varied interpretations arise. It's a reality of any decent system of laws that interpretation is possible. This includes misinterpretation. Human beings are fallible, last time I checked.


Great, so you call the police and, by the time they get there, she's already wandered into the pond. The appropriate action would have been to get the child's attention and see if you could find out where her caretakers were. If you couldn't (or even if you could), you should then call either the caretakers or the police, and stay with the child until they arrive.

There may be exceptions to the ordinary rule depending on circumstances. Proximity to the pond in this case was not given. There's no need to go into hypotheticals. I think my ultimate disagreement with your position is pretty minor.


Have you ever seen a child get lost in a department store? The clerks generally don't just make an announcement of, "Child loose in store," and then go about their business. Instead, they ask the child for his name and parent's names. They will then stay with the child while paging the parents to come and get the child. Something very similar could have been done here.

The difference is the presence of an approved procedure. I've worked in similar situations, where there existed a 5-step process, or something similar. There isn't normally a posted procedure for encountering a distressed person in a park or on a street corner. In any case, retailers are well-aware of their liability and don't make those decisions haphazardly. Their standards are usually reviewed by a team of corporate lawyers your average pedestrian has no access to.

Lawmakers cannot reasonably forsee every possible application of the law they pass. The result is that certain behavior can be interpreted in more than one way. I see no moral conflict in making informed decisions based on that fact.

I do. The proper action is to try and change unjust applications of the law. If the law has unforeseen and unintended actions that cause harm, then the law itself needs to be changed. Leaving it alone will do nothing but lead to further injustice.

Move that situation into a public place and we're back to square one. Sexual abuse in someone's home isn't something you're likely to discover as a disinterested party.

And sexual abuse isn't something you're likely to see in public. Thus, unless the person trying to help the child takes them home or something like that, there is little reason to believe anything is wrong.

The fact that it occurs, even within a mostly-just system, is reason enough to learn to navigate around it.

No, it is reason enough to try and change. "Navigating around it" validates it.

Taking appropriate action involves an appreciation for the likely consequences. Again, laws are seldom so explicit and narrow that no conflicts or varied interpretations arise. It's a reality of any decent system of laws that interpretation is possible. This includes misinterpretation. Human beings are fallible, last time I checked.

This isn't a matter of a poorly written law. It is a matter of the law being applied in a sexist manner. If we started taking driver's licenses away from every woman who got a ticket, while not doing it for men, because of the stereotype that women are poor drivers, should all women simply stop driving and validate the unjust application of the law?

There may be exceptions to the ordinary rule depending on circumstances. Proximity to the pond in this case was not given. There's no need to go into hypotheticals. I think my ultimate disagreement with your position is pretty minor.

Ok, so she isn't in the pond. But she's far enough away that the cops can't find her and assume the call was a prank. A toddler should not be allowed to wander around alone - period.

The difference is the presence of an approved procedure.

Irrelevant. The point is that the welfare of the child is paramount.

Do you have numbers that make you think otherwise? Or the existence of a few stories that make you think it happens every time a man tries to help a child?
I've heard enough stories to suggest that arbitrary-unknown-man-with-child is more likely to be helping but falsely accused than actually intending harm. Baby out with bathwater :/

What I see from the thread is exactly what is being complained about. I see (mostly) men bitching that they don't want to be stereotyped with child molesters by stereotyping all women (or even all people) as sexist assholes who would assume the worst in them.

Fighting fire with fire rarely works.
Well, until one of us is incorrectly accused there's very little we can do. Can't exactly stand in the park and scream "I am not a paedophile!", can we?

So we keep out of the way and hope we don't have to get involved. Bit like the monsters in Monsters Inc. running from the toddler in fear...

Look for the numbers in a different way. There are numerous studies concluding that sexual abuse/kidnapping/etc. are nearly always carried out by someone the child knows - usually a family member, caretaker, or family friend.
That's why I phrased it as I did: I know that and you know that. Which is why I think it's silly that people get so worked up about it! It's the same nonsense as all the paranoia about terrorism. People are not good at thinking rationally about anything emotional, and when you get a big fat fnord like paedophilia wandering around, well...

You don't think a two-year old wandering alone is a "significant reason"? Hell, what does it take to be significant?
That - if I were the chap in the OP's story - would be ignorance on my behalf. I don't know what the normal behaviour of two-year-olds is, and wouldn't be able to tell a two-year-old was two. I'd probably assume that the child was older because it was wandering around. I know very little about children, due to spending very little time with them since I was one myself.

Erk, I've just noticed that my early night's gone out the window. Goodnight!

The proper action is to try and change unjust applications of the law. If the law has unforeseen and unintended actions that cause harm, then the law itself needs to be changed. Leaving it alone will do nothing but lead to further injustice.


My experience is that things are rarely so clear. Rectifying an injustice where misperception is the enemy is a torturous endeavor. It's best avoided if possible. If simple explainations worked, that would be the norm. This isn't the result of bad law. It's the result of law, good or bad, run through the prism of unpredictable human emotion. Take the initiative and appoint yourself guardian of the weak if you must, but don't have any illusions.

And sexual abuse isn't something you're likely to see in public. Thus, unless the person trying to help the child takes them home or something like that, there is little reason to believe anything is wrong.

That's a problem of perception, not of the law. The fact that people aren't as friendly as perhaps they should be does nothing to negate the moral option of nonintervention. If a man chooses to intervene and is destroyed by misperception, he should at least be aware of that possiblility. I wouldn't call it a problem of law.

This isn't a matter of a poorly written law. It is a matter of the law being applied in a sexist manner. If we started taking driver's licenses away from every woman who got a ticket, while not doing it for men, because of the stereotype that women are poor drivers, should all women simply stop driving and validate the unjust application of the law?

I don't think the analogy works in this case - that's a clear-cut instance of discrimination. Public mispreception of a social problem that leads to the prosecution of innocents is a different animal. The problem is belief, and we don't legislate belief. We make the facts available, but it's neither possible nor desirable to intentionally prejudice a legal result by insinuating sexism where it may or may not exist based on norms of gender perception. We examine cases individually and decide whether the threat was or is real. The fact stands that intervention by any person of any gender entails certain risks even in an ideal society. Failure to understand the likely emotional response your actions will cause in others is blindness, and cannot be legislated away.

My experience is that things are rarely so clear. Rectifying an injustice where misperception is the enemy is a torturous endeavor.

But worth it nonetheless.

This isn't the result of bad law. It's the result of law, good or bad, run through the prism of unpredictable human emotion.

Those who apply the law are, in essence, part of it. If they apply it badly, then the law itself cannot be trusted.

That's a problem of perception, not of the law.

And perception leads to application. If it leads to improper application, then both the application and perception need to be changed.

The fact that people aren't as friendly as perhaps they should be does nothing to negate the moral option of nonintervention.

Nonintervention in this case is immoral.

If a man chooses to intervene and is destroyed by misperception, he should at least be aware of that possiblility. I wouldn't call it a problem of law.

It is a problem of the improper application of the law.

I don't think the analogy works in this case - that's a clear-cut instance of discrimination.

So is this.

Public mispreception of a social problem that leads to the prosecution of innocents is a different animal. The problem is belief, and we don't legislate belief.

No, but the law must be applied equally to all people, regardless of belief. If it isn't, there is a problem.

If you pick up a random Muslim off the street, is he really more likely to be a terrorist than your random Christian? No. Thus, a Muslim being treated differently by the law on nothing more than his religion is an improper application of the law.

We make the facts available, but it's neither possible nor desirable to intentionally prejudice a legal result by insinuating sexism where it may or may not exist based on norms of gender perception.

If we are doing anything base don "norms of gender perception," it IS sexist. The law must deal with individuals, not stereotypes.

We examine cases individually and decide whether the threat was or is real. The fact stands that intervention by any person of any gender entails certain risks even in an ideal society. Failure to understand the likely emotional response your actions will cause in others is blindness, and cannot be legislated away.

No, but anyone who intervenes can be treated equally by the law. I would suspect any person who I saw drive up and pick up a wandering, crying child - male or female. I would expect the law to look into either in an equivalent manner. And I would expect that, if there was no evidence of foulplay and the person seemed to have been attempting to help, that no penalties would be leveled.

If this is not applied equivalently, regardless of ethnicity, sex, gender, etc., the law has been inappropriately applied and steps need to be taken to rectify that.

No, but anyone who intervenes can be treated equally by the law. I would suspect any person who I saw drive up and pick up a wandering, crying child - male or female. I would expect the law to look into either in an equivalent manner. And I would expect that, if there was no evidence of foulplay and the person seemed to have been attempting to help, that no penalties would be leveled.


No disagreement there. A person should anticipate the response their actions will bring. Those actions and responses are the facts of the case. When only the facts are considered, we have what we might call equality. But when I'm morally impelled toward acting in a way that will forseeably create facts that stand in contrast to my actual intention, I reserve the right not to intervene, or at least to make a calclulation for myself that weighs my options.

This is an interesting topic that I hope to continue later. The pharmacy awaits me now. Flu season and all. :)

More on my point on the media. Do you think such assumptions could be avoided if news organizations reported on more lost or in-danger children helped out by a stranger, rather than all the kidnappings?


Problem: most parents are very reluctant to rush off to the newspapers and say: "Accidentally let little Jimmy wander off the other day, but it was okay, because the complete stranger who found him happened not to be a paedophile or even a kidnapper."
Therefore the media very rarely get to hear about such cases. When a child is found dead and/or the victim in a murder case, the media get to hear all about it. Therefore, so does everyone else.

Come to think of it, a couple of years ago I wrote a news story about a kid who wandered off from his garden and was found about an hour later, after the entire neighbourhood had turned out to look for him. The parents were so grateful to their volunteer helpers that they decided to share the story. However, I doubt printing it has affected the local 'stranger danger' paranoia one bit.

[..]
If this is not applied equivalently, regardless of ethnicity, sex, gender, etc., the law has been inappropriately applied and steps need to be taken to rectify that.

I've agreed with many of your points, but sadly, I think you are woefully underestimating just how much prejudice is out there; both institutional and personal. It's been this way right across the western world since the Paedo-witch hunts of the late 80s and early 90s. Sex indictments and convictions (some later overturned) have been made essentially on the word of the 'victim', perverting the course of justice and unfairly casting doubt on genuine cases.

Many of these prejudices are disguised as "safety" concerns. There was a furore in my own country just last year when it was revealed that it was our national carrier's policy not to seat unattended minors next to men.

Just tonight I had a brief discussion with my female flatmate about a very public rape case on our TV news. The case was acquitted because of a lack of evidence. My flatmate however was horrified by this decision, asking "why would a woman lie about something like that?". I don't have an opinion as to the defendant's guilt as I wasn't on the jury. But here once again, where there's smoke, there's fire; so "better safe than sorry", right? And these attitudes are very common.

I do agree with you though that passive aggressive bitching on a message board is not enough: Masculism clearly has a place in modern activism.

I have a number of friends who do primary education, both males and females, all are told during their studies, and then again at the schools that unless there is a clear and present danger of further injury (ie lots of blood, bones sticking out or a wall about to collapse etc) an injured child should not be attended to by a male teacher on yard duty, but that one of the female teachers should deal with it.

This is moderated with the statement that it is for the benefit of people who are passing the school, or parents, who dont know that the respondant is a teacher but still...

PS i doubt that this is written down anywhere it is more likely to be verbal instructions only

@The person that called me a sexist because i cast a general assumption for all women based on my interactions with 2 women is an idiot. I wouldn't say most women are sexist if that was my only expierience of that kind.
There's been others, i went to a toystore that same weekend to buy a present for my daughter. And another shopper came up to me and openly told me to leave the store.
She told me it was obvious i was a paedophile. I asked her why she presumed i was a paedophile. Her exact reply "What else would a tall man in his twenties be doing in a toy store". I said "Buying a present for his daughter". She obviously didn't believe me because she put down what she was buying and left the store immediatley.
Women tell us we shouldn't stereotype but they don't understand what it's like to be a man in 21st century USA. An overwhelming number of women think we are paedophiles based on our sex. Which is sad.
As for the questions about why i didn't charge the women. I thought about it and mentioned it to my wife after i had been released. A cop was in earshot and told me not to bother because they will just say they were protecting a child.
Some women seem to think the world is against them and us men have no stereotypes of our own to deal with.
Maybe, it's not all women, just Jersey women...i was happy to come back to good old Massachusetts a few hours later. Where we are all pot smoking crazy communist unpatriotic liberals. At least the stereotypes against me here won't land me in jail for a few decades.

@The person that called me a sexist because i cast a general assumption for all women based on my interactions with 2 women is an idiot. I wouldn't say most women are sexist if that was my only expierience of that kind.
There's been others, i went to a toystore that same weekend to buy a present for my daughter. And another shopper came up to me and openly told me to leave the store.
She told me it was obvious i was a paedophile. I asked her why she presumed i was a paedophile. Her exact reply "What else would a tall man in his twenties be doing in a toy store". I said "Buying a present for his daughter". She obviously didn't believe me because she put down what she was buying and left the store immediatley.
Women tell us we shouldn't stereotype but they don't understand what it's like to be a man in 21st century USA. An overwhelming number of women think we are paedophiles based on our sex. Which is sad.
As for the questions about why i didn't charge the women. I thought about it and mentioned it to my wife after i had been released. A cop was in earshot and told me not to bother because they will just say they were protecting a child.
Some women seem to think the world is against them and us men have no stereotypes of our own to deal with.
Maybe, it's not all women, just Jersey women...i was happy to come back to good old Massachusetts a few hours later. Where we are all pot smoking crazy communist unpatriotic liberals. At least the stereotypes against me here won't land me in jail for a few decades.


You got maced... it was your child... if what this cop says is right they could have gotten away with mudering you! That's just not right.

It seems rather pointless to sit back and bitch about a situation when you are against any attempt to change it.

If I see two people talking, and for some odd reason I think one of them is harming the other, I can't just walk up and assault one of them and claim that I was defending the other. I have to have a good reason to believe that someone is being harmed, and my actions have to be tailored to the situation. For instance, if someone is hitting another, I can physically restrain them to stop the harm, but I can't pull out a gun and shoot them if they have no weapon unless I can back up, in court, my belief that it was the only way to stop it.
The problem with a board of people from so many different places is that we all live under different legal systems and cultures.

In the UK you are allowed to commit a crime to prevent a greater crime from occuring - this is the defense used by protesters of nuculear weapons when they invade and vandalise navy bases. And it has held up every time. If you have (in your opinion) reasonable belief that someone is abducting a child you can commit any crime less severe than kidnap and child rape to prevent the crime. Further to this - for an act to be criminal you need to be able to demonstrate an "evil intent", if the intent is to do good it is very very very hard to prosecute it as a crime. In civil courts the burden is different, but the chances of convicting someone of a crime resulting from them believeing they were preventing a child from being kidnapped would be pretty much nil. It might be different where that guy is from, but that is how it stands in the UK.

As to reasonable force - two average women will have a very hard job restraining a vaguely fit adult male without serious risk to themselves. If they are particulary strong women, or have had training in restraint methods (i know a couple of women who very successfully work as nightclub bouncers) then the situation is different, but for most women this is not the case - hence the pepper spray could easily be accounted for as reasonable force.



As to your regard to the topic in general - I think that your experiences as a women leave you with a very different world view to a man and you are simply unable to empathise with the male position and severely underestimate the experiences of men in this respect. It is not just women, but also men who have a severe and widespread distrust of men in regards to children - and this makes it a very difficult world for men to interact with children.

In the UK male teachers are instructed not to touch children, not to comfort them if they are hurt and never to be alone with them. I read an interview where a woman teacher recounted how she saw a male teacher helping a girl who has tripped and cut her knee her quote was as best I can rememener:

"I knew there was nothing going on, but I saw it and thought "that just looks so wrong""

There was a thread here a while ago where someone stated that their church had a daycare centre where single men were forbidden from working, and married men could only volunteer when accompanied by their wives, and even then were forbidden from being with children on their own, none of the rules applied to female volunteers.

A friend of mine got arrested a few years ago on suspicion of abducitng a child - he was 20 years old and walking his 8 year old sister to school and someone phoned the police. Even when she was telling them he was her brother he still spent several hours in a police cell until his mother came down and identified him.

I have also been accused - when I was 18 there was a child, maybe 4 years old sitting in the middle of the road. No adults around, I ran out into the road (there was a bus approaching) and picked up the kid (it was so awful - he was literally skin and bones, he seemed to weigh not much more than a heavy cat and I could feel all his bones throgh his clothes.) while carrying him to the cops I was questioned five times and the cops quizzed me very suspiciously - even though I had brought him to the police! And this was before a spate of pedophile scares across the nation - I can only imagine what would have happened if I did this the week the News of The World started it's campaign...

You may not see men in this light, however you are definately on the minority amoung both men and women.

You got maced... it was your child... if what this cop says is right they could have gotten away with mudering you! That's just not right.

That's where "proportional force" comes into play. They did enough to stop me comitting a "crime", no more. Like if they got me on the ground then took out a gun or a knife and inflicted further unnecessary force, or even just kicked me or whatever, then they'd have been in trouble.

Sadly, that's how it is. In this country a father performs his duty to care for his daughter, shows absolutely no sign that he is doing anything else, gets attacked and can do nothing about it. As JFK once said "democracy is not perfect but we have never had to put a wall around our people to keep them in"(quoted from memory, probably not exact). This country isn't perfect, we do have some problems.

I wouldn't approach a child on their own either unless they were obviously injured. Even a mere accusation of pedophilia is enough to do a lot of damage, especially when it's near impossible to prove intent otherwise.

I never would have thought the problem so widespread. I had a very similar case in my family.

Although in our case it almost ended pretty badly with lawsuits, etc.. I was 3 years old, my mother was in the hospital to give birth to my younger brother. So my father took the time to keep me preoccupied, probably also to get his mind on other things. My grandmother, his mother just died 5 weeks ago, so he was into the whole I have to have a close bond to my children.
So he went with me for most of the week to different playgrounds and beaches. On one of the times, I was playing on the swing bars, I fell and I had a woodchip splinter me a bit above the knee. He ran over, took it out and carried a crying me to the car, to go home and patch me up.
Two mothers, in their late thirties who came later and didn't see me arrive with my father only him picking up a crying me and him walking pretty quickly with me in his arm towards our car confronted my father. Who then put me down.
This is where things got dirty, and one of the things I remember most vividly from my childhood. While one of the mothers proceeded to scream and yell at my father, the other lady then tried to grab me and pull her to me. This is where my overprotective father, already in a fragile emotional state over the death of his mother and the stress of my mother's pregnancy over the last few months burst his fuse.
He pushed the lady forcefully away from me and said he would call the police if they did not go away immediately. One of them pulled what I assumed was a taser, while my father was in a yelling match with the one that tried to forcefully pull me away from my fathers leg. She hit him roughly in the left rib, he had a mark for almost 2 months there. However my father and his side of the family are pretty large people, he was well over 6'5 (over 2 meters), broad shoulders and pretty muscular and well over 200 pounds (nowadays he is somewhat overweight though with age and his love for french cuisine and fancy restaurants). Also he used to box in his university days. I can only assume the taser was set too weak for someone his size, weight and muscle tone, but nonetheless he grunted in pain.
This is where it came to bad. In his rage he slammed his fist into the woman's face who taserred him, I just remember he falling backwards and hitting the floor with a sickening crunch and the other woman stutterring "Oh my gawd", the whole time. Later I learned the lady had a concussion as well as two parts of her cheek were cracked by the force of the blow.

He took me to the car, called the police. After they arrived he left his number and address with the guy and asked to go to the hospital.

The woman later threatened to sue, when everyone was present at the police department a week later. She had serious problems with dizziness spells (not sure if she lied about it or not), but her whole left side of her face was puffed up and her eye swollen shut. My father had the grace to apologise even though I personally think she deserved it. She almost flipped again before the police calmed her down.
In the end everyone decided not to sue. Since my father threatened to sue her for child abduction if she sued him for assault and battery. She decided she didn't want to risk jail time or a lengthy expensive trial. So we went our seperate ways.

That was the only time I remember seeing my father ever be violent. I assume it was because he was afraid of losing me to some strange women who were even attacking him with weapons, his mother just died, and my mother was in the hospital with possible pregnancy complications (none arose thank god). It all must have caved in and he let loose his boxer left hook before he could rationally do anything else such as grab me and outrun them for example.

Either way I sympathize with the guy in the article. I personally think that I would also keep my distance from children unless it was absolutely life threatening.

post above this one

So out of a very small NSG population we already have four examples (if I am counting right) from peoples real life experiences (rather than "I read in a paper...") of men who have been attacked, confronted, arrested or questioned by police while helping or trying to help either their own children/siblings or children who were obviously in immediate danger. (Myself, my mate, Australia and the USA and Cybach) As well as several examples where people have been given very suspicious looks or similar treatment for the same.

Anyone else have experiences like this or did I miss any?

And we wonder why men are unwilling to intervene with children...

And we wonder why men are unwilling to intervene with children...

We don't wonder, we're all well aware. We're at the "Whose fault is it so we can deprive them of sweeties?" stage.

You know what...why don't we start questioning every woman who comes into a hospital with a sick child? Since most Munchausen by Proxy perpetrators are women, we must assume that ALL women who show care to children are only doing it so they may harm them and recieve attention.

...Does this make sense?
In any good hospital, the possibility of MBP will be investigated if a child is admitted multiple times. Just like the possibility of abuse is investigated if a child keeps coming in with broken bones or serious bruises.

thinking a poll needs to be added to this -but as im not the OP i cant :-) is it acceptable to put a poll in a seperate post :-D

1) Male, understand avoidance of kids
2) Male, dont understand/why would you avoid etc..
3) Female, understand avoidance of kids
4) Female, dont understand/why would you avoid etc..
1) Blank, understand avoidance of kids
2) Blank, dont understand/why would you avoid etc..

should cover it? or are there other options im missing?

One of the biggest problems is that a lot of people automatically assume that a man who is with a kid can't possibly be caring for that child, because that's not what men do. Men don't take care of babies! If a man is with a little kid, it can't be because he's helping, he must be a predator!

I think it is terrible that our society has such a low opinion of men, and that we still have so much trouble seeing men as caregivers for children. I strongly support effort to increase the involvement of men in childrearing and childcare, and I hope we can increase the recognition and acceptance of men in these roles. I think that will go a long way to addressing the fears that many people have about men and kids.

I think it is terrible that our society has such a low opinion of men, and that we still have so much trouble seeing men as caregivers for children. I strongly support effort to increase the involvement of men in childrearing and childcare, and I hope we can increase the recognition and acceptance of men in these roles. I think that will go a long way to addressing the fears that many people have about men and kids.

But that will help the paedophiles!
Won't you think of the children?

:rolleyes:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2006/03/23/eddad21.xml&sSheet=/education/2006/03/25/ixteright.html

This may be from early 2006, but it would seem the same applies today. There's certainly still paedophilia hysteria. And if I was the man referred to, I probably wouldn't have helped the child either.

The editor of the story relates opinions in his office and states "women generally thought his a pathetic excuse" (but of course -any man reading this will know why I said "of course" before reading the rest- men were more sympathetic). But if any one of those women had seen a man (who was clearly not related) in a car talking to a kid, or saw a man get out of a car to speak to a kid, I'm willing to bet my life savings that they would be suspicious of him.

And I'm willing to bet my life that if any of the nursery staff (if all female) saw him, they would assume he wanted to harm the child, perhaps abduct her.

If there was a clear problem like a badly bleeding leg, I would help (though I would still be worried) because at least if any woman* confronts me, I can say "you can see her leg's bleeding, I'm trying to help her". But if I stopped to help a two-year-old who was wandering on her own, having no idea where she came from, there's not much I could say to convince a woman* that I'm not a paedophile... "I'm trying to help her" >>What do you mean? She doesn't need any fucking help!<<... "I just wanted to make sure she was O.K." >>When there's nothing wrong with her? Yeh right you fucking sicko<<... "I saw her wandering on her own and wanted to check she was O.K. and try to find her parents" >>More like you wanted to kidnap her you perverted freak<<

*From personal experience, and from what I've seen, read, and heard, women are more likely to read "PAEDO!" into innocent things. This is not sexism, it's FACT - ask your female friends what they would think if they saw a man get out of a car and approach a kid, then ask your male friends.

That's ridiculous. You see an unattended two year old, you pull over and call the police. If you don't have a cell phone, you flag someone down to call police for you. Male or female, you don't toss the kid in your car and drive off.

If I (female) saw anyone stop a car and walk up to an unattended two year old, certainly I'd stop, too.

I don't understand this attitude that men don't care for young children. Did we warp back into the 1940s or something? My kids' dad works for child protective services -- it's not like he's the only guy there or anything. I work with guys who routinely take time off to care for a sick child. My son goes to a daycare where there are male teachers. Maybe I live in some strange alternate universe where men can change a diaper and women are allowed to work. Strange.

You got maced... it was your child... if what this cop says is right they could have gotten away with mudering you! That's just not right.

I agree. To me, this illustrates the danger of taking legal advice from the police. Giving that kind of advice is totally outside their realm of expertise.

I don't have any in depth knowledge of the US legal system, but if it's anything like the UK's law on using force to prevent a crime, they could have faced criminal prosecution as well as a civil suit.

To justify their actions, they would need to have witnessed something which would cause a reasonable person (not 'idiot wannabe vigilante' - 'reasonable person') to think a crime was being committed. (That's before you consider whether their actions constituted reasonable force. In the UK it wouldn't be since they shouldn't have been carrying pepper spray in the first place.)

I agree. To me, this illustrates the danger of taking legal advice from the police. Giving that kind of advice is totally outside their realm of expertise.

I don't have any in depth knowledge of the US legal system, but if it's anything like the UK's law on using force to prevent a crime, they could have faced criminal prosecution as well as a civil suit.

To justify their actions, they would need to have witnessed something which would cause a reasonable person (not 'idiot wannabe vigilante' - 'reasonable person') to think a crime was being committed. (That's before you consider whether their actions constituted reasonable force. In the UK it wouldn't be since they shouldn't have been carrying pepper spray in the first place.)

In the UK you can commit a crime if you think you are preventing a greater crime from occuring - this has held up even when the 'crime' you are preventing is not defined as a crime by law - Anti-Nuclear protesters are a good example of this.

In addition in order for an act to be criminal there has to be an "evil intent". If someone thinks they are doing good when they are actually causing harm it is very difficult to convict them in a criminal court. Civil courts are a different issue. It would be very hard to convict someone who thought they were preventing a child abduction.

As to the force - two average women will have a very hard job restraing an average male (I know female bouncers who can quite easily, but in general this is not the case) without serious risk to themselves - as such they would be justified in using such force such as pepper spray, however their posession of the spray would be a seperate matter for the police. So in this case while the posession would be illegal, the use of the spray could very well still be legal.

In the UK you can commit a crime if you think you are preventing a greater crime from occuring - this has held up even when the 'crime' you are preventing is not defined as a crime by law - Anti-Nuclear protesters are a good example of this.

In addition in order for an act to be criminal there has to be an "evil intent". If someone thinks they are doing good when they are actually causing harm it is very difficult to convict them in a criminal court. Civil courts are a different issue. It would be very hard to convict someone who thought they were preventing a child abduction.

As to the force - two average women will have a very hard job restraing an average male (I know female bouncers who can quite easily, but in general this is not the case) without serious risk to themselves - as such they would be justified in using such force such as pepper spray, however their posession of the spray would be a seperate matter for the police. So in this case while the posession would be illegal, the use of the spray could very well still be legal.


Just out of interest. In UK law, would my father have been punished for retaliating and what percieved trying to protect me from two mad women?

They used unnecessary force first by attempting to render him useless on the floor by employing a taser which gives off a strong electic current. In return he hit the one attacking him, however he had a boxer physique and weighed more then both women together. Hence the woman getting a bad concussion and recurring spells of dizziness according to her. Or would he have been punished for trying to keep me out of the hands of some strange women and using enough force to knock one out and keep the other one too shocked to be dumb enough to try what her friend did and attack my father to take me away.

Yesterday I was sitting in the library and I heard someone crying. If it had been a friend, I would have gone to see if he or she was okay. But it's someone I don't know (I assume), it's not any of my business, and they may want their privacy. And the clincher in my decision not to see if whoever it was is okay? Social pressure: I notice that the library is crowded, and no one else is paying any attention.

At the same time, though, if I was crying, and another student came up to me to see if I was okay, I'd be touched. So by the Golden Rule, I should have gone to see, but I didn't.
If the same thing had happened to me, I would have been embarassed, not touched. Then I probably would have faked a smile and a nice little story to get the person to leave and thanked them for coming over. I'd probably just end up leaving and shutting myself up in the bathroom if I couldn't go home right away after that...

If the same thing had happened to me, I would have been embarassed, not touched. Then I probably would have faked a smile and a nice little story to get the person to leave and thanked them for coming over. I'd probably just end up leaving and shutting myself up in the bathroom if I couldn't go home right away after that...
Yeah, me too. I tend to leave people alone when they are very upset, because it's what I want people to do when I am very upset.

I know that I am extremely consistent about applying the Golden Rule. I really do treat people the way I would expect them to treat me. The problem is, I'm a curmudgeon and most of the ways I want to be treated revolve around leaving me the hell alone, so I tend to treat others more coldly than many of them might prefer.

Just out of interest. In UK law, would my father have been punished for retaliating and what percieved trying to protect me from two mad women?

They used unnecessary force first by attempting to render him useless on the floor by employing a taser which gives off a strong electic current. In return he hit the one attacking him, however he had a boxer physique and weighed more then both women together. Hence the woman getting a bad concussion and recurring spells of dizziness according to her. Or would he have been punished for trying to keep me out of the hands of some strange women and using enough force to knock one out and keep the other one too shocked to be dumb enough to try what her friend did and attack my father to take me away.
This is way outside what I know about the UK legal system, also there is a very unsympathetic attitude to victims of crime and people who defend themselves - so this is just a guess and may or may not be correct:

His actions would have probably come under the self defense system - where you can defend yourself using reasonable force when retreat is not an option. As he was being attacked with a weapon that could have rendered him unconscious and he was protecting himself from harm and his child from abduction then his actions would probably not have been viewed as criminal - note also there is a lack of "evil intent", however he could still be at risk of legal action from the woman he struck in a civil court where burdens of proof are very different and the act rather than the intent of the act is what is judged.

Dempub means well, but I think she overestimates the intelligence and ability to think rationally of the general public.

So to this we simply must agree to disagree. I agree with the OP and his side, and disagree with Dempub and her side.

It just comes down to a matter of opinion.

Just out of interest. In UK law, would my father have been punished for retaliating and what percieved trying to protect me from two mad women?

They used unnecessary force first by attempting to render him useless on the floor by employing a taser which gives off a strong electic current. In return he hit the one attacking him, however he had a boxer physique and weighed more then both women together. Hence the woman getting a bad concussion and recurring spells of dizziness according to her. Or would he have been punished for trying to keep me out of the hands of some strange women and using enough force to knock one out and keep the other one too shocked to be dumb enough to try what her friend did and attack my father to take me away.

Up to the jury to decide whether the force used was reasonable. Given that he was much larger and stronger than them and hence capable of taking the taser off them without doing that much damage. Borderline I'd say, probably would have to pay damages though.

@The person that called me a sexist because i cast a general assumption for all women based on my interactions with 2 women is an idiot. I wouldn't say most women are sexist if that was my only expierience of that kind.
There's been others, i went to a toystore that same weekend to buy a present for my daughter. And another shopper came up to me and openly told me to leave the store.
She told me it was obvious i was a paedophile. I asked her why she presumed i was a paedophile. Her exact reply "What else would a tall man in his twenties be doing in a toy store". I said "Buying a present for his daughter". She obviously didn't believe me because she put down what she was buying and left the store immediatley.
Women tell us we shouldn't stereotype but they don't understand what it's like to be a man in 21st century USA. An overwhelming number of women think we are paedophiles based on our sex. Which is sad.
As for the questions about why i didn't charge the women. I thought about it and mentioned it to my wife after i had been released. A cop was in earshot and told me not to bother because they will just say they were protecting a child.
Some women seem to think the world is against them and us men have no stereotypes of our own to deal with.
Maybe, it's not all women, just Jersey women...i was happy to come back to good old Massachusetts a few hours later. Where we are all pot smoking crazy communist unpatriotic liberals. At least the stereotypes against me here won't land me in jail for a few decades.

My dear, you can't bitch about stereotypes in one breath and them make them in the next and expect to be taken seriously.

My dear, you can't bitch about stereotypes in one breath and them make them in the next and expect to be taken seriously.

If you'll comb through the posts, he was taken seriously, because it is a serious issue. Your inability to grasp the opposing viewpoint is neither his concern nor anyone else's.

This thread is seriously fucked up.

Either:

a) men are getting ridiculously hysterical and making shit up or focusing on one or two negative interactions as being indicative of 'the norm' or;

b) you people live in really fucked up communities.

Not stopping to help a toddler tottering off alone, for fear of being accused of attemped kidnapping?

Must be b.

A bit of both?

It just seems so bizarre to me. Yes, men worry about working with young children, and it causes problems...but not so badly that any man in any situation involving children or products for children is thought of as a pedophile!

This thread is seriously fucked up.

Either:

a) men are getting ridiculously hysterical and making shit up or focusing on one or two negative interactions as being indicative of 'the norm' or;

b) you people live in really fucked up communities.

Not stopping to help a toddler tottering off alone, for fear of being accused of attemped kidnapping?

Must be b.

A bit of both?

The problem with a board of people from so many different places is that we all live under different legal systems and cultures.

In the UK you are allowed to commit a crime to prevent a greater crime from occuring - this is the defense used by protesters of nuculear weapons when they invade and vandalise navy bases. And it has held up every time. If you have (in your opinion) reasonable belief that someone is abducting a child you can commit any crime less severe than kidnap and child rape to prevent the crime.

That's lovely. It means you can assault anyone you want and then just say, "Well, I thought he was gonna kidnap that child," and get away with it.

As to your regard to the topic in general - I think that your experiences as a women leave you with a very different world view to a man and you are simply unable to empathise with the male position and severely underestimate the experiences of men in this respect.

I am unable to empathize with any position which puts "me me me" mentality before the welfare of a child, nor do I want to. But I have a higher opinion of men than to think that this is the "male position" - that all men would rather see a child harmed than risk the possibility of a false accusation.

It is not just women, but also men who have a severe and widespread distrust of men in regards to children - and this makes it a very difficult world for men to interact with children.

And such attitudes aren't going to go away if men simply sit back and let them dominate.

In the UK male teachers are instructed not to touch children, not to comfort them if they are hurt and never to be alone with them. I read an interview where a woman teacher recounted how she saw a male teacher helping a girl who has tripped and cut her knee her quote was as best I can rememener:

"I knew there was nothing going on, but I saw it and thought "that just looks so wrong""

And she was being sexist. She's obviously aware of it as well. The schools are being sexist, and are harming the student-teacher relationship (not to mention the students' impressions of men) by applying such a double standard.

There was a thread here a while ago where someone stated that their church had a daycare centre where single men were forbidden from working, and married men could only volunteer when accompanied by their wives, and even then were forbidden from being with children on their own, none of the rules applied to female volunteers.

Indeed. And, as you might remember, I argued against such a policy.

*snip*

And so on....

You may not see men in this light, however you are definately on the minority amoung both men and women.

I highly doubt it. I think this is, as most such stereotypes are, a matter of a vocal minority being allowed to form public opinion.

This thread is seriously fucked up.

Either:

a) men are getting ridiculously hysterical and making shit up or focusing on one or two negative interactions as being indicative of 'the norm' or;

b) you people live in really fucked up communities.

Not stopping to help a toddler tottering off alone, for fear of being accused of attemped kidnapping?

Must be b.

It's because of a moral panic that's been going on over the past few years in the United Kingdom over "pedophiles". It makes everyone think that there are vast hordes of child rapists in white vans roaming the streets looking for children to abduct, or on message boards, social networking sites, and IM programs seducing children into meeting them. Wheras in reality of course such abductions are rare, and the vast majority of child sexual abuse is by family members or those known to the family. So I think it's a mixture of your two options: It's the whole community that is getting ridiculously hysterical and making shit up or focusing on one or two negative interactions as being indicative of 'the norm'.

thinking a poll needs to be added to this -but as im not the OP i cant :-) is it acceptable to put a poll in a seperate post :-D

1) Male, understand avoidance of kids
2) Male, dont understand/why would you avoid etc..
3) Female, understand avoidance of kids
4) Female, dont understand/why would you avoid etc..
1) Blank, understand avoidance of kids
2) Blank, dont understand/why would you avoid etc..

should cover it? or are there other options im missing?

This goes well beyond "avoidance of kids." I know plenty of people who avoid kids. They simply don't want to be around them. Some people find kids to be very annoying in general.

I know very few people, on the other hand, who would see a child in danger and simply keep walking/driving/etc. - no matter what their general attitude towards children may be.

Dempub means well, but I think she overestimates the intelligence and ability to think rationally of the general public.

So to this we simply must agree to disagree. I agree with the OP and his side, and disagree with Dempub and her side.

So you think men are doing the right thing if they ignore children in danger and let them die? How nice.

You think that most people are sexist assholes?

What, precisely, do you disagree with?


If you'll comb through the posts, he was taken seriously, because it is a serious issue. Your inability to grasp the opposing viewpoint is neither his concern nor anyone else's.

I'm sorry if I don't want to "grasp" sexist attitudes. I don't want to "grasp" racist attitudes either, do you see a problem with that?

This is a serious issue, and the appropriate response is not further sexism, like that which Mulitiland and Australia and the USA are demonstrating.

If you had read about or even experienced cases in which a black man was assaulted by a white man because the white man was convinced that the black man was committing a crime when he was not, would you think the appropriate response was to start yelling, "ALL WHITE PEOPLE THINK BLACK PEOPLE ARE ALL CRIMINALS!!!!!!!"
Or would the appropriate response be to fight the stereotype wherever it was made, while recognizing that most people don't hold such attitudes?

the callous look is the risk/reward ratio is not high enough.

why is that callous :confused: what other way of making decisions is there?

as has been stated by all (i think) the men involved here: If the kid is in actual imminent danger, ie about to step onto a busy road, get electrocuted or some other possibly fatal situation they would involve themselves... However from that to a possibly, note possibly, lost child or a slight (graze etc) injury then i and most of the people above (males) will not get involved... the callous look is the risk/reward ratio is not high enough. But this is a subconscious decision.

as has been stated by all (i think) the men involved here: If the kid is in actual imminent danger, ie about to step onto a busy road, get electrocuted or some other possibly fatal situation they would involve themselves... However from that to a possibly, note possibly, lost child or a slight (graze etc) injury then i and most of the people above (males) will not get involved... the callous look is the risk/reward ratio is not high enough. But this is a subconscious decision.

If it were a subconscious decision, the man mentioned in the article wouldn't have been sitting there thinking about the question "Should I check on that child or not?"

But he did think about it, and consciously decided that, because he was afraid of being labeled a pedophile, even a call to the police was not in order.

Yes, men are influenced by their culture, as are we all. But they cannot be absolved of all responsibility for their decisions because of it.

That's lovely. It means you can assault anyone you want and then just say, "Well, I thought he was gonna kidnap that child," and get away with it.

It's not in the person's opinion. The jury has to decide that it was a reasonable response.


I am unable to empathize with any position which puts "me me me" mentality before the welfare of a child, nor do I want to. But I have a higher opinion of men than to think that this is the "male position" - that all men would rather see a child harmed than risk the possibility of a false accusation.

Look at it this way, in the cases mentioned, the women were reacting to a risk that a child was about to be harmed. Everytime you see an adult take-away a child there is a certain level of risk that they are in fact a paedophile abducting a child. At what level of risk do you step in on? For me and I think most men, if the child is not in clear, imminent, and undeniable danger (eg in the middle of the road) we don't want to run the risk of being falsely accused and being convicted by media and rumour whatever happens in court.


And such attitudes aren't going to go away if men simply sit back and let them dominate.

Not everyone wants to be a martyr to the cause, or risk becoming one.


And she was being sexist. She's obviously aware of it as well. The schools are being sexist, and are harming the student-teacher relationship (not to mention the students' impressions of men) by applying such a double standard.
The schools are generally reacting to societal/parental pressures. Minimum risk of complaints etc.

So you think men are doing the right thing if they ignore children in danger and let them die? How nice.
Same as above, if the danger is clear and blindingly obviously imminent then most men will, if it isn't then there's doubt.


If you had read about or even experienced cases in which a black man was assaulted by a white man because the white man was convinced that the black man was committing a crime when he was not, would you think the appropriate response was to start yelling, "ALL WHITE PEOPLE THINK BLACK PEOPLE ARE ALL CRIMINALS!!!!!!!"
Or would the appropriate response be to fight the stereotype wherever it was made, while recognizing that most people don't hold such attitudes?
No, but look at it this way. Men are less trusted with children than women, it's a societal fact, their actions with them are viewed with more suspicion than women's. When black people were discriminated against, do you find it surprising that they went out of their way to avoid situations where they could be discriminated against. Isn't it just common sense?

sorry i should have qualified that last sentence with "...may be a..."

For me it is conscious as i basically have to make all interpersonal decisions at a conscious level, at least for non friends...

If it were a subconscious decision, the man mentioned in the article wouldn't have been sitting there thinking about the question "Should I check on that child or not?"

But he did think about it, and consciously decided that, because he was afraid of being labeled a pedophile, even a call to the police was not in order.

Yes, men are influenced by their culture, as are we all. But they cannot be absolved of all responsibility for their decisions because of it.
I tend to agree with this. There are actions which are totally understandable, yet not remotely commendable.

I can completely understand why some men may feel concerned about interacting with children. I can understand why wide-spread disapproval, and even risk of punishment, might be discouraging to them. But I don't think that makes it OK to abandon one's personal responsibilities.

I face a lot of disapproval and hostility because of the principles I stand up for. I will not pretend that I am always successful at holding to my principles, or that I'm never scared or exhausted. I blow it a lot of the time. But I really believe that I should do what is right even if other people yell at me or harass me or even try to punish me for it. I have cowardly feelings, as I suspect most people do, but I do my best to not let them rule my behavior.

Oy, wouldn't the same principle that insists someone must help a lost child insist that anyone nearby must call the police, because the person may be a pedophile? There's a child, possibly in danger, we should let nothing, even the possibility of destroying someone's life, deter us from action.

In the UK you can commit a crime if you think you are preventing a greater crime from occuring

It's not that simple. To say that you, the individual facing prosecution, honestly thought your actions were justified is not a defence. (It might be a useful part of your mitigation, though.) Otherwise fox hunt protests would be an even bigger nightmare than they already are.


In addition in order for an act to be criminal there has to be an "evil intent". If someone thinks they are doing good when they are actually causing harm it is very difficult to convict them in a criminal court.

You misunderstand the meaning of the legal phrase 'malice aforethought'. An understandable mistake, since it is a very misleading term. Besides, there are such things as [looks for legal textbook; swears a lot; finds it under some dirty washing] 'strict liability' offences. They do not require malice aforethought.

Use of the pepper spray could not be legal unless they just happened to have found it lying around just at the moment they decided they were going to have to intervene to rescue this child. Which is unlikey, to say the least.

As an aside, people simply don't understand how the UK's law addresses issues of self-defence. Physically overcoming the attacker is allowed; using more force than is necessary because panic has affected your judgement is allowed; using something that happens to be close at hand as a weapon is allowed. Attacking someone who is trying to run away is not allowed, nor is taking revenge on them if you manage to catch them.

You misunderstand the meaning of the legal phrase 'malice aforethought'. An understandable mistake, since it is a very misleading term. Besides, there are such things as [looks for legal textbook; swears a lot; finds it under some dirty washing] 'strict liability' offences. They do not require malice aforethought.



To be pedantic, you mean mens rea (guilty mind) not malice aforethought (the mens rea of murder, namely to intend to kill or cause GBH).

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1;12379450]

Dempublicents, from what I've read of your posts in this thread so far, it seems that you have got things totally wrong.

I would do what is best for my own kid. But if I get locked up and made out to be a paedophile, you don't think that would have repercussions for my family?! Not just my kids, but my Mother, my brothers, and my sisters would be attacked because of an assumption that I was a paedo

I do not have a low opinion of women. I think women often (though not always) make more sense than men. But it doesn't matter if I think women are God-like, that doesn't change fact - and the fact is, based on my own personal experience and based on what I've read and heard and seen, women are much more likely than men to read "paedo" into something innocent as someone on here has evidenced with a personal account of a pper spray incident (I'm replying at a later time from when I read it so I can't remember who wrote it).

From your posts earlier, I guessed you were female before you admitted it. You seem to me to be the sort of female who would automatically call a man sexist when he mentions or questions something related to women, just because he's male and referring to women. I think before you start shouting things at men, you need to ask yourself why you are doing that in the first place. I mean REALLY ask yourself.

It's not in the person's opinion. The jury has to decide that it was a reasonable response.

Not according to the person I was responding to:


The problem with a board of people from so many different places is that we all live under different legal systems and cultures.

In the UK you are allowed to commit a crime to prevent a greater crime from occuring - this is the defense used by protesters of nuculear weapons when they invade and vandalise navy bases. And it has held up every time. If you have (in your opinion) reasonable belief that someone is abducting a child you can commit any crime less severe than kidnap and child rape to prevent the crime.

According to this post, as long as the person committing the crime claims to have been trying to do something good, it's not a crime.

Look at it this way, in the cases mentioned, the women were reacting to a risk that a child was about to be harmed.

But not a reasonable assumption that a child was about to be harmed, especially not when the child obviously knew the person they were with.

Everytime you see an adult take-away a child there is a certain level of risk that they are in fact a paedophile abducting a child. At what level of risk do you step in on?

The point at which you actually have reason to believe that person should not be approaching or taking said child.

For me and I think most men, if the child is not in clear, imminent, and undeniable danger (eg in the middle of the road) we don't want to run the risk of being falsely accused and being convicted by media and rumour whatever happens in court.

So most men are selfish bastards who don't care about children unless they're about to be hit by a bus? I don't buy it.

Not everyone wants to be a martyr to the cause, or risk becoming one.

Anyone who is unwilling to fight for a cause has no business complaining about it. If any man in this thread is not willing to stand up and fight against the stereotypes he is complaining about - to live his life despite said stereotype - then he has no business bitching. He is part of the problem.

The schools are generally reacting to societal/parental pressures. Minimum risk of complaints etc.

If most of the people in an area were racist, should the school engage in discriminatory hiring practices or policies to prevent complaints? If not, why is it acceptable when we are talking about gender?

Same as above, if the danger is clear and blindingly obviously imminent then most men will, if it isn't then there's doubt.

And you don't think a toddler alone, with no adults in sight, is in obvious danger? How obvious does the danger have to be? We've heard several stories in this very thread of men who were basically waiting for a child to actually step out in front of a vehicle before he would do anything - at which point it would have been too late.

No, but look at it this way. Men are less trusted with children than women, it's a societal fact, their actions with them are viewed with more suspicion than women's. When black people were discriminated against, do you find it surprising that they went out of their way to avoid situations where they could be discriminated against. Isn't it just common sense?

No. Doing so does nothing but validate the discrimination.

Oy, wouldn't the same principle that insists someone must help a lost child insist that anyone nearby must call the police, because the person may be a pedophile? There's a child, possibly in danger, we should let nothing, even the possibility of destroying someone's life, deter us from action.

Any person "may be a pedophile." It takes a bit more than, "I saw this person with a child," to even suspect pedophilia. Suggesting that anyone who helps a child should be reported for lost pedophilia is like suggesting that anyone who walks into a bank should be reported as a possible bank robber.


Dempublicents, from what I've read of your posts in this thread so far, it seems that you have got things totally wrong.

O Rly?

I would do what is best for my own kid. But if I get locked up and made out to be a paedophile, you don't think that would have repercussions for my family?! Not just my kids, but my Mother, my brothers, and my sisters would be attacked because of an assumption that I was a paedo

And this has what to do with the topic at hand? Should we all be concerned only with the safety of our own children? Should we all ignore any other person in danger because of the possibility of something being misconstruied?

I do not have a low opinion of women.

Riiiiight. Assuming that all or most women are sexist means you have a very high opinion of them.

Just like assuming that all blacks are [insert insult here] means you really, really like them because you have lots of black friends.

I think women often (though not always) make more sense than men. But it doesn't matter if I think women are God-like, that doesn't change fact - and the fact is, based on my own personal experience and based on what I've read and heard and seen, women are much more likely than men to read "paedo" into something innocent as someone on here has evidenced with a personal account of a pper spray incident (I'm replying at a later time from when I read it so I can't remember who wrote it).

At least we've gone from "most women" to "women are much more likely...." That's progress.

From your posts earlier, I guessed you were female before you admitted it.

Admitted it? It isn't like it's a crime or something I'm ashamed of. I've been in multiple threads with you in the past. The topic of my gender has come up multiple times. I wasn't exactly trying to hide it, my dear.

You seem to me to be the sort of female who would automatically call a man sexist when he mentions or questions something related to women, just because he's male and referring to women.

Huh? So the fact that I am arguing that most men are NOT sexist and that most women are NOT sexist somehow equates to thinking any man who mentions women is sexist?

I think before you start shouting things at men, you need to ask yourself why you are doing that in the first place. I mean REALLY ask yourself.

I'm not "shouting things at men." I am shouting things at sexists. I don't know or care what the gender of every participant in this thread is. It doesn't matter if you are male or female. If you express sexist views, I'm going to point them out. If sexist views are widespread, I'm going to try and be a part of dispelling them.

You started this thread by trying to set up a "battle of the sexes" scenario. You suggested that most women automatically view men as potential pedophiles and would react to a man trying to help a child poorly. You also suggested that most men are so afraid of even the suggestion of impropriety that they would fail to help a child in need. All I did was point out that I don't share your low opinion of either. I don't think most men would ignore a child in need and I don't think most women would condemn him for helping.

Any person "may be a pedophile." It takes a bit more than, "I saw this person with a child," to even suspect pedophilia.

I do truly wish people were like you imagine them to be, the world would be so much better.

How about, "I saw this person drive up to a child, and take them away"? Stop thinking like the logical person you are. You're an anomaly.

Suggesting that anyone who helps a child should be reported for lost pedophilia is like suggesting that anyone who walks into a bank should be reported as a possible bank robber.

*shrug* I've heard worse.

To be pedantic, you mean mens rea (guilty mind) not malice aforethought (the mens rea of murder, namely to intend to kill or cause GBH).

Oh, right... previous poster said 'evil intent', I thought they meant 'malice aforethought'. But now you've said it, I can see you are right - they must have meant mens rea. Regardless, not all criminal offences require a mens rea.

More to the point, I need to ditch that double post.

I do truly wish people were like you imagine them to be, the world would be so much better.

How about, "I saw this person drive up to a child, and take them away"? Stop thinking like the logical person you are. You're an anomaly.

I'd be suspicious of anyone I saw "drive up to a child and drive them away." That doesn't, of course, mean I'd assault them.

And I don't think I am an anomaly, any more than I am an anomaly in my religion/profession/etc. I think people get too hung up on the stupidity of the minority and begin to assume that they represent all people.

*shrug* I've heard worse.

Really? What sort of people do you hang out with?

I'd be suspicious of anyone I saw "drive up to a child and drive them away." That doesn't, of course, mean I'd assault them.

And I don't think I am an anomaly, any more than I am an anomaly in my religion/profession/etc. I think people get too hung up on the stupidity of the minority and begin to assume that they represent all people.

They don't need to represent all people. Just...enough people. Anyone who might see you helping out a child. They needn't assault you. I would prefer someone assaulting me for it than formally accusing me of it, followed by me being acquitted. With pepper spray, it ruins my sight for, what, an hour? but merely an accusation and *poof*, life gone. The idea "drive up to a child and drive them away." is apparently enough to get even you suspicious. Imagine what that means for normal people.



Really? What sort of people do you hang out with?

You assume I took the time to hang out with them for some reason....

They don't need to represent all people. Just...enough people.

And yet, I've seen no evidence that they represent any where near a majority. This seems, to me, to be simply another case of people letting a vocal minority define an entire society. If everyone else would stand up and do something about it, instead of bitching that they're being "forced" to ignore children in need because someone *might* misinterpret it, the vocal minority would get even smaller - and probably less vocal.

Anyone who might see you helping out a child.

Most people who might see you helping a child would see just that - you helping a child. In fact, many would come to further assist. Even those who may be initially suspicious generally aren't going to jump to assault or even accusations. They will simply attempt to further assess the situation.

The idea "drive up to a child and drive them away." is apparently enough to get even you suspicious. Imagine what that means for normal people.

Should it not? If you saw a car drive up to an adult, someone get out and grab them, put them in the car, and then drive off, what would you think? Personally, I'd think it was pretty odd. Why would I think any differently with a child - who is even less able to protect himself?

Of course, that is ignoring any other circumstance. Does the child willingly and quickly get into the car? That makes it much less suspicious. Does the child call the driver "mommy", "uncle", etc.? That also make sit much less suspicious.

You assume I took the time to hang out with them for some reason....

You were obviously around them enough to hear something really stupid.

And yet, I've seen no evidence that they represent any where near a majority. This seems, to me, to be simply another case of people letting a vocal minority define an entire society. If everyone else would stand up and do something about it, instead of bitching that they're being "forced" to ignore children in need because someone *might* misinterpret it, the vocal minority would get even smaller - and probably less vocal.
I have said nothing of entire society, or even majority. Simply, 'enough'.

Yes, if everyone else would.
...
Well, where are they?
Most people who might see you helping a child would see just that - you helping a child. In fact, many would come to further assist. Even those who may be initially suspicious generally aren't going to jump to assault or even accusations. They will simply attempt to further assess the situation.

You've no more basis for this than Multiland does his accusations.

Should it not? If you saw a car drive up to an adult, someone get out and grab them, put them in the car, and then drive off, what would you think? Personally, I'd think it was pretty odd. Why would I think any differently with a child - who is even less able to protect himself?

Indeed. And, moreover, why would we presume anyone less than you would think any better?

Of course, that is ignoring any other circumstance. Does the child willingly and quickly get into the car? That makes it much less suspicious. Does the child call the driver "mommy", "uncle", etc.? That also make sit much less suspicious.

Aren't most cases someone familiar to the family? That's the sort of factoid that one could pick up and jump on.

You were obviously around them enough to hear something really stupid.

As you keep saying "the vocal minority". All one needs to do is walk down a street, look at a poster or two, not so hard really.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2006/03/23/eddad21.xml&sSheet=/education/2006/03/25/ixteright.html

This may be from early 2006, but it would seem the same applies today. There's certainly still paedophilia hysteria. And if I was the man referred to, I probably wouldn't have helped the child either.

The editor of the story relates opinions in his office and states "women generally thought his a pathetic excuse" (but of course -any man reading this will know why I said "of course" before reading the rest- men were more sympathetic). But if any one of those women had seen a man (who was clearly not related) in a car talking to a kid, or saw a man get out of a car to speak to a kid, I'm willing to bet my life savings that they would be suspicious of him.

And I'm willing to bet my life that if any of the nursery staff (if all female) saw him, they would assume he wanted to harm the child, perhaps abduct her.

If there was a clear problem like a badly bleeding leg, I would help (though I would still be worried) because at least if any woman* confronts me, I can say "you can see her leg's bleeding, I'm trying to help her". But if I stopped to help a two-year-old who was wandering on her own, having no idea where she came from, there's not much I could say to convince a woman* that I'm not a paedophile... "I'm trying to help her" >>What do you mean? She doesn't need any fucking help!<<... "I just wanted to make sure she was O.K." >>When there's nothing wrong with her? Yeh right you fucking sicko<<... "I saw her wandering on her own and wanted to check she was O.K. and try to find her parents" >>More like you wanted to kidnap her you perverted freak<<

*From personal experience, and from what I've seen, read, and heard, women are more likely to read "PAEDO!" into innocent things. This is not sexism, it's FACT - ask your female friends what they would think if they saw a man get out of a car and approach a kid, then ask your male friends.

This is probably why back in the day perverts like this were publicly hanged, their sick desires would raise paranoia parents have towards other adults if they were left alive. I blame the pedophiles, if they weren't left around to do sick things that made parents have suspicions about every other stranger than this would have never happened.

Not according to the person I was responding to:



According to this post, as long as the person committing the crime claims to have been trying to do something good, it's not a crime.

They're wrong.

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law)


The defendant does not have the right to decide how much force it is reasonable to use because the defendant would always believe he or she was acting reasonably and would never be guilty of any offence. It is for the jury, as ordinary members of the community, to decide the amount of force which it would be reasonable to use in the circumstances of each case.



Anyone who is unwilling to fight for a cause has no business complaining about it. If any man in this thread is not willing to stand up and fight against the stereotypes he is complaining about - to live his life despite said stereotype - then he has no business bitching. He is part of the problem.



If most of the people in an area were racist, should the school engage in discriminatory hiring practices or policies to prevent complaints? If not, why is it acceptable when we are talking about gender?



And you don't think a toddler alone, with no adults in sight, is in obvious danger? How obvious does the danger have to be? We've heard several stories in this very thread of men who were basically waiting for a child to actually step out in front of a vehicle before he would do anything - at which point it would have been too late.



No. Doing so does nothing but validate the discrimination.

I do not like it but I'm not prepared to risk it. Does me not fighting for it make it right for it to exist in relation to me? There've already been incidents where it's been demonstrated, but they haven't changed anything. I reserve my right to dissent but not want to become a martyral statistic where I think it'll do little good.


Any person "may be a pedophile." It takes a bit more than, "I saw this person with a child," to even suspect pedophilia. Suggesting that anyone who helps a child should be reported for lost pedophilia is like suggesting that anyone who walks into a bank should be reported as a possible bank robber.

Take the example given above, the women saw a man pulling a crying child into a car, is that sufficient to intervene?



And this has what to do with the topic at hand? Should we all be concerned only with the safety of our own children? Should we all ignore any other person in danger because of the possibility of something being misconstruied?

Effectively, they're weighing up the risks, should I risk my child for someone elses. Humans are generally selfish being, for a lot of people family comes first etc.

The main problem is that even if there is a trial and an acquittal, or even just an accusation then there tends to be trial by rumour which can convict and damage lives on no evidence at all. Evidence is not required.

I have said nothing of entire society, or even majority. Simply, 'enough'.

If it isn't anything near a majority, then it is only "enough" if you allow it to be.

Yes, if everyone else would.
...
Well, where are they?

Good question. I can only do so much if the people being marginalized are cowering in the corner.

Indeed. And, moreover, why would we presume anyone less than you would think any better?

Huh?

Aren't most cases someone familiar to the family? That's the sort of factoid that one could pick up and jump on.

Most cases are someone familiar to the child and the family, but most people who are familiar to children are not looking to harm them.

As you keep saying "the vocal minority". All one needs to do is walk down a street, look at a poster or two, not so hard really.

If we always lived our lives by whoever was screaming the loudest, we'd have really shitty lives indeed.


They're wrong.

Good, then I was correct to begin with.

I do not like it but I'm not prepared to risk it. Does me not fighting for it make it right for it to exist in relation to me?

You not fighting for it makes you part of the problem. It doesn't make it "right", but it means that you are a contributor, and thus have no business complaining.

There've already been incidents where it's been demonstrated, but they haven't changed anything. I reserve my right to dissent but not want to become a martyral statistic where I think it'll do little good.

And preserving the welfare or life of a child is "little good"?

Take the example given above, the women saw a man pulling a crying child into a car, is that sufficient to intervene?

If any person sees any adult drive up to a crying child and "pull them into a car", there is cause to investigate. It has nothing at all to do with the gender of either person.

Effectively, they're weighing up the risks, should I risk my child for someone elses. Humans are generally selfish being, for a lot of people family comes first etc.

The main problem is that even if there is a trial and an acquittal, or even just an accusation then there tends to be trial by rumour which can convict and damage lives on no evidence at all. Evidence is not required.

Yes, that is a problem. But not "the main problem." The main problems are (a) some people (men and women) think men are pedophiles from the start and (b) many men are so convinced that the majority think this that they would leave a child in danger.

You not fighting for it makes you part of the problem. It doesn't make it "right", but it means that you are a contributor, and thus have no business complaining.
I'm not complaining per se, the point of the OP was explaining why men are reluctant to act.


If any person sees any adult drive up to a crying child and "pull them into a car", there is cause to investigate. It has nothing at all to do with the gender of either person.
Logically not. In reality I'd say there is still an element of sexism in society the is more suspicious of men.

Logically not. In reality I'd say there is still an element of sexism in society the is more suspicious of men.

Well aren't men the ones who commit the majority of sex crimes against children? I would be more suspicious of that gender as well.

Well aren't men the ones who commit the majority of sex crimes against children? I would be more suspicious of that gender as well.

Off the top of my head black people commit more crimes, as do poor people. Are you more suspicious of them?

Off the top of my head black people commit more crimes, as do poor people. Are you more suspicious of them?

We are talking about a specific crime here, one against children. And men are simply more apt to snatch children and abuse them. Just the way it is. In this case I could care less if the man was black or dressed as if he might be poor. If you are talking about other crimes than it is irrelevant to this discussion.

We are talking about a specific crime here, one against children. And men are simply more apt to snatch children and abuse them. Just the way it is. In this case I could care less if the man was black or dressed as if he might be poor. If you are talking about other crimes than it is irrelevant to this discussion.

I'm questioning whether you hold to the principle of being more suspisious of an entire demographic because a higher proportion of them commit a certain crime.

[..]You not fighting for it makes you part of the problem. It doesn't make it "right", but it means that you are a contributor, and thus have no business complaining.[..]


And if any other group fails to fight against a prevailing attitude that discriminates against them, they are also "part of the problem"?

I ask because I have seen some comments on this forum (not from you as far as I know) that this position, when applied to historically oppressed groups constitutes "blaming the victim".

And if any other group fails to fight against a prevailing attitude that discriminates against them, they are also "part of the problem"?

Yes. If you give in to the stereotype, you validate it, and thus become part of the problem.

I ask because I have seen some comments on this forum (not from you as far as I know) that this position, when applied to historically oppressed groups constitutes "blaming the victim".

Blaming the victim is a problem in when the victim has done nothing to cause the problem, or when they can do nothing to cause the problem. In the case of something like this, those who hold the sexist viewpoint are most to blame, but those who validate share some of the blame as well.

Yes. If you give in to the stereotype, you validate it, and thus become part of the problem.

Yes, but giving into the stereotype in this case means becoming a pedophile.

I'm questioning whether you hold to the principle of being more suspisious of an entire demographic because a higher proportion of them commit a certain crime.

It's not men in general that are suspected of being pedophiles, it's men that go up to children that they aren't related to that are suspected of being pedophiles. One is a very large demographic, the other is a very small one.

I'm questioning whether you hold to the principle of being more suspisious of an entire demographic because a higher proportion of them commit a certain crime.

This is too open-ended a question. I am not going to view blacks or any other group with suspicion simply because they may statistically commit more crimes. In this case however, I will naturally view men with more suspicion when it regards sexually abusing a child. They overwhelmingly are the ones who are responsible for that particular crime so why should I have any qualms about singling them out in this case? Other crimes you can't have such certainty.

I went down to New Jersey with my wife and 3 year old daughter a few weeks ago to visit some of our college buddies. One morning my wife was sick and stayed in bed all day, our friends had to go to work, so my daughter and i went for a walk.
We saw a park and she wanted to play there. I sat on a bench while she played. About 30 minutes later she fell and was crying, i ran to her like any father would. I picked her up, made sure she had no serious injuries and i gave her a hug. She wanted to go home so we started to walk away.
Two women start running towards me and without a word unload a can of pepper spray each into my eyes. One of them calls the cops while i'm rolling around on the ground in pain.
I tryed to tell them i was the father of the daughter, they didn't believe me. Even though my daughter was crying and calling me daddy. The police came and arrested me. My wife had to come down and show ID to prove i'm the father.
All this happened because i ran to the aid of my daughter. So please don't tell me most women don't discriminate against an unknown man being near a child.
So they assaulted you and tried to have you arrested on false grounds.

You should file a complaint.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/main.jhtml?xml=/education/2006/03/23/eddad21.xml&sSheet=/education/2006/03/25/ixteright.html

This may be from early 2006, but it would seem the same applies today. There's certainly still paedophilia hysteria. And if I was the man referred to, I probably wouldn't have helped the child either.

The editor of the story relates opinions in his office and states "women generally thought his a pathetic excuse" (but of course -any man reading this will know why I said "of course" before reading the rest- men were more sympathetic). But if any one of those women had seen a man (who was clearly not related) in a car talking to a kid, or saw a man get out of a car to speak to a kid, I'm willing to bet my life savings that they would be suspicious of him.

And I'm willing to bet my life that if any of the nursery staff (if all female) saw him, they would assume he wanted to harm the child, perhaps abduct her.

If there was a clear problem like a badly bleeding leg, I would help (though I would still be worried) because at least if any woman* confronts me, I can say "you can see her leg's bleeding, I'm trying to help her". But if I stopped to help a two-year-old who was wandering on her own, having no idea where she came from, there's not much I could say to convince a woman* that I'm not a paedophile... "I'm trying to help her" >>What do you mean? She doesn't need any fucking help!<<... "I just wanted to make sure she was O.K." >>When there's nothing wrong with her? Yeh right you fucking sicko<<... "I saw her wandering on her own and wanted to check she was O.K. and try to find her parents" >>More like you wanted to kidnap her you perverted freak<<

*From personal experience, and from what I've seen, read, and heard, women are more likely to read "PAEDO!" into innocent things. This is not sexism, it's FACT - ask your female friends what they would think if they saw a man get out of a car and approach a kid, then ask your male friends.

Of course; women's lib, political correctness, and the news media's harping on "violence against women and children" has brainwashed the women of the 21st century into assuming that ALL men are evil sex-obsessed predators, and that no matter what they do or why they do it, it is a heinous crime against children. We men ought to start taking that attitude toward women for a while, give them a taste of their own medicine, and let them know what it feels like.

All you women out there read my lips very carefully:

ALL MEN ARE NOT EVIL SEX-OBSESSED RAPISTS/PEDOPHILES! I AM SORRY THAT SOME OF US ARE, BUT DO NOT ASSUME BECAUSE SOME OF US ARE, THAT WE ALL ARE. YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT IF WE DID THAT TO YOU.

I'm very protective of children, so chances are I would have stopped to help and then thought about the consequences later. Even so, I find it all too easy to understand the guy's point of view.

Me too.

Quite a sad state of affairs. A man questioning whether or not to do the right thing because he is afraid of being accosted or even arrested. Why does everyone assume that because a man shows some kind sentiment towards a child that he is simply trying to "abduct" them? Can't a man be caring? Or are we all just sexual beasts, unable to control our urges to ravage the innocent?

I don't give a fuck what someone would think, if I saw a child in danger in some way, and no one else would help, I would step up. It is the human thing to do.

Women WANT to believe we all are "sexual beasts, unable to control our urges to ravage the innocent", because a few (a very few) of us, that is, THE VAST UNDERWHELMING MINORITY of us, ARE sexual predators, but the news media blow it out of proportion and make it look like most of us ARE predators, and this mental image of us gets etched into women's minds until they sub-consciously assume that we only want to molest children, rather than help them.

You know what...why don't we start questioning every woman who comes into a hospital with a sick child? Since most Munchausen by Proxy perpetrators are women, we must assume that ALL women who show care to children are only doing it so they may harm them and recieve attention.

...Does this make sense?

YES! Of course it makes sense. A LOT of sense! In fact I think it's long overdue that some of us men apply negative generalities to women and assume the worst about THEM, just like they like to do to us. Let them see how THEY like to be on the short end of the stick for once! Then maybe they'll change (by which I mean IMPROVE) their attitude toward us and start treating us like the human beings we are, instead of the insane, slobbering, perpetually horny beasts they want to believe we are.

Then I hope you never have children. You obviously aren't a responsible enough person to do what is best for them.

Why? I think his excuse is pathetic. I know he has to live with this for the rest of his life, so I do feel bad for him, but I also think that he brought that burden upon himself. You don't see a toddler wandering alone along a street and simply keep driving - I don't care who you are.

Why do you have such a low opinion of women?

Believe it or not, most women do not have such a low opinion of men that they would assume any man who tries to help/comfort/take care of a child is a pedophile looking to harm them. And as for those in society who do, it cannot simply be blamed upon women. Both men and women have contributed for generations to the assigned gender roles we see today. Women are "supposed to" have a "motherly instinct" that leads them to take care of children, even if not their own. Men are "supposed to" be uninterested in children, even their own. They have always been bullshit stereotypes, but they have shaped the way both look at childcare. And, because this man's thinking had obviously been stunted by such stereotypes, a little girl who might have been returned safely to those responsible for her is dead.

That's not the point. The point is that if he HAD stopped to help the child, he would have been stereotyped into a child-molesting predator because of his gender. I'm sorry the girl is dead, but I can't help but sympathize with the man. If I were in his position, the first time I were in such a situation, I might consider helping the little girl, TAKING A CHANCE that i MIGHT not be labeled a pedophile or a child molester. But if i WERE labeled as such for it, I would NEVER do it again. Once bitten, twice shy.

And as for your statement that "most women do not have such a low opinion of men that they would assume any man who tries to help/comfort/take care of a child is a pedophile looking to harm them", I certainly hope that is true. I sincerely want to believe that all women do NOT have THAT low an opinion of men, but the more they (men) are negatively stereotyped in the media, the harder it is for me to believe.

This is too open-ended a question. I am not going to view blacks or any other group with suspicion simply because they may statistically commit more crimes. In this case however, I will naturally view men with more suspicion when it regards sexually abusing a child. They overwhelmingly are the ones who are responsible for that particular crime so why should I have any qualms about singling them out in this case? Other crimes you can't have such certainty.

How much of a statistical indication that members of group x is overwhelmingly responsible for doing act y is required before the entire group is viewed with increased suspicion?

I saved a kid from wondering into the street the other day, I didn't even think about it. My instinct just said "GET HIM!" So I dashed for the kid and the mom was filled with so much appreciation and thanks.

What made me do it was thinking about if it was my kid... I'd hope someone would save him if he was wondering into the street.

If any person sees any adult drive up to a crying child and "pull them into a car", there is cause to investigate. It has nothing at all to do with the gender of either person.
However, ppl will view a man doing with a great deal more suspicion than seeing a woman doing it - and be more ready to accept the explanation that the stopping was over concern for the toddlers wellbeing from a woman than they would from a man.
And that's the whole point ppl here are trying to make.

You're looking at this in hindsight. The guy didn't stop and now a toddler is dead. Thus he made the wrong decision and you're anrgy at him.

However, what if the kid wasn't injured and wasn't lost? What if she did lin fact live nearby and had merely fallen over and skinned her knee - hence the tears. I don't doubt that 99 times out a hundred (at least!) this would indeed be the case.
A strange man pulls up and starts talking to her. What then? Do you honestly believe her parents/neighbours seeing that would not immediately assume the worst and come charging over hurling accusations (and quite probably fists) of "Paedophile! Get away from my daughter!"
Let's assume they didn't see her fall. Thus for them it would be a case of 'look out the window to see a strange man talking to their upset and crying daughter and apparently trying to get her into his car.'
You really think any parent's first thought would be, 'There's bound to be a rational explanation for this scene'?
You really think they'd accept his explanation that he was merely stopping because he was concerned for her wellbeing and wanted to help? (which, let's face it, is most likely exactly what an actual paedo would say in order to extracate himself from the situation - thus no matter what he says would condemn him)
And be honest with yourself here - if you did see a man stop and talk to an upset but uninjured toddler, one he admits he doesn't know, would you really believe him when he tells you he was just stopping to see if she was okay?
Nor would calling in the Police help - that would just convince many onlookers that the accusations of paedophilia were justified.
With current hysteria over paedos (espesh in the UK where they've even attacked a paedatrician for Heaven's sake!), rational thought has been well forgotten, left to wither and die. Knee-jerk hysteria has taken hold, fed by moronic fear-mongering courtesy of our wonderful media.

Unfortunately, paedophilia is one crime where in society's mind you're not innocent until proven guilty. Any sort of accusation can be enough to destroy a man's life and career.


All this would have gone through this poor guy's mind when drving past. In this case he made a tragically wrong decision. However had he stopped and she'd been totally fine, he could well have found himself on the wrong side of child abduction/molestation accusations dogging him for the rest of his life.

As I said above, 99 times out of a hundred the girl would have been in no danger. Which means 99 times out a hundred, if men do as you expect them to and stop, men face the possibility not of being called a hero but instead seeing their lives destroyed with false accusations of child molestation.
Maybe you're happy to see that happen to dozens, if not hundreds, of men until society finally wakes up and realises how insane and hysterical it's been seeing paedos lurking in every shadow but oddly enough most men aren't prepared to take that risk.


Personally I feel you're obsfuscating by continually saying you'd be suspicious of either sex driving up and grabbing a toddler. If you were honest to yourself, you're admit you (like all of us) would be 1000 times more suspicious if it was a man, not a woman doing the grabbing.


It would make an interesting psych experiment - showing a film to two groups:
Group One sees a man driving up, stopping and pulling a crying child into his car before driving off;
Group Two sees the same situation, but this time it's a woman.

I wager most ppl (men and women) in Group One would say he's trying to abduct the child, whereas Group Two subjects would say she's the kid's mother who's been searching for her.

And that's the mindset of the general populace which men are well aware of these days when being around kids.

ALL MEN ARE NOT EVIL SEX-OBSESSED RAPISTS/PEDOPHILES! I AM SORRY THAT SOME OF US ARE, BUT DO NOT ASSUME BECAUSE SOME OF US ARE, THAT WE ALL ARE. YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT IF WE DID THAT TO YOU.I wish more women were sex-obsessed rapists! ^_^

I wish more women were sex-obsessed rapists! ^_^LMAO.

They're wrong.

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defence_in_English_law)



Sorry, I thought it was very obvious that given that you have to go to trial (I did mention convictions several times, which normally require trials...) to prove that your force was reasonable or that you had good reason to believe your actions were good, that it would be obvious that it was up to the jury to decide wether the force used, or the descision to use force was reasonable.

I guess I was wrong in assuming people would make the connection between what would obviously require a jury trial and the fact the jury make the judgement on wether the force and the descision to use it was reasonable. Just as they make the judgement on everything else that you, your accuser and any witnesses or the evidence have to say.

And you don't think a toddler alone, with no adults in sight, is in obvious danger? How obvious does the danger have to be? We've heard several stories in this very thread of men who were basically waiting for a child to actually step out in front of a vehicle before he would do anything - at which point it would have been too late.


If this is in response to me running out into the road to grab a toddler which had a bus bearing down on him - when I first saw the kid he was sitting in the middle of the road, I did not wait for him to run out there. It is also worth pointing out that this incident happened on a busy road with a lot of people walking about - many of whom would ahve seen the kid walk out into the road long before I got there.

None of the passers by, male OR female, stepped into the road to pick the toddler up. However when I ran out to rescue a kid who was obviously in imminemt danger several passers by who saw what I did started to question me as they were suspicious I was abducting the kid!

Yes, but giving into the stereotype in this case means becoming a pedophile.

No, it doesn't. The underlying stereotype is that men do not care about children, and thus any man who willingly approaches a child must be a pedophile.

Men who decide not to help children because of this stereotype are feeding the idea that "normal" men do not care about children. They are validating it, as it will appear to be true.


This is too open-ended a question. I am not going to view blacks or any other group with suspicion simply because they may statistically commit more crimes. In this case however, I will naturally view men with more suspicion when it regards sexually abusing a child. They overwhelmingly are the ones who are responsible for that particular crime so why should I have any qualms about singling them out in this case? Other crimes you can't have such certainty.

So, because a tiny minority of people in general molest children, and the majority of that tiny minority happen to be male, you are going to treat all men as if they are likely to be child molesters?

That, my dear, is the very definition of bigotry.

Of course; women's lib, political correctness, and the news media's harping on "violence against women and children" has brainwashed the women of the 21st century into assuming that ALL men are evil sex-obsessed predators, and that no matter what they do or why they do it, it is a heinous crime against children. We men ought to start taking that attitude toward women for a while, give them a taste of their own medicine, and let them know what it feels like.

All you women out there read my lips very carefully:

ALL MEN ARE NOT EVIL SEX-OBSESSED RAPISTS/PEDOPHILES! I AM SORRY THAT SOME OF US ARE, BUT DO NOT ASSUME BECAUSE SOME OF US ARE, THAT WE ALL ARE. YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT IF WE DID THAT TO YOU.

Hey Ohshucksiforgotourname, read my lips very carefully:

ALL WOMEN ARE NOT SEXIST ASSHOLES! I AM SORRY THAT SOME OF US ARE< BUT DO NOT ASSUME THAT BECAUSE SOME OF US ARE, THAT WE ALL ARE. YOU WOULDN'T LIKE IT IF WE DID THAT TO YOU.

Irony is beautiful. You have just used one breath to dispell a sexist view of men, and then espoused a sexist view of women. Congratulations on winning the hypocrisy award for the day.

If it isn't anything near a majority, then it is only "enough" if you allow it to be.

How so? If five people are around, only one needs to report you. That's hardly a majority.

Most cases are someone familiar to the child and the family, but most people who are familiar to children are not looking to harm them.

*shrug* The thought process generally won't make it to or past the comma.

If we always lived our lives by whoever was screaming the loudest, we'd have really shitty lives indeed.

What's this now? You wanted to know how I heard worse ideas without hanging out with the people saying them. What's this reply you've given me about?

That's not the point.

Yes, it is.

The point is that if he HAD stopped to help the child, he would have been stereotyped into a child-molesting predator because of his gender.

Highly unlikely.

I'm sorry the girl is dead, but I can't help but sympathize with the man. If I were in his position, the first time I were in such a situation, I might consider helping the little girl, TAKING A CHANCE that i MIGHT not be labeled a pedophile or a child molester. But if i WERE labeled as such for it, I would NEVER do it again. Once bitten, twice shy.

There is no evidence that this man has ever experienced any other situation like this. And he couldn't even be bothered to pick up the phone and call, even if he wouldn't personally intervene.

And as for your statement that "most women do not have such a low opinion of men that they would assume any man who tries to help/comfort/take care of a child is a pedophile looking to harm them", I certainly hope that is true. I sincerely want to believe that all women do NOT have THAT low an opinion of men, but the more they (men) are negatively stereotyped in the media, the harder it is for me to believe.

If you really think that all stereotypes in the media represent the majority opinion of women, you really need to learn about a little thing we call reality.


However, ppl will view a man doing with a great deal more suspicion than seeing a woman doing it - and be more ready to accept the explanation that the stopping was over concern for the toddlers wellbeing from a woman than they would from a man.
And that's the whole point ppl here are trying to make.

Correction, some people may view a man doing so with more suspicion than a woman. And those people are sexist.


You're looking at this in hindsight. The guy didn't stop and now a toddler is dead. Thus he made the wrong decision and you're anrgy at him.

The girl's parents could simply have been out of sight, but still watching her, and it STILL would have been the wrong decision.

However, what if the kid wasn't injured and wasn't lost? What if she did lin fact live nearby and had merely fallen over and skinned her knee - hence the tears. I don't doubt that 99 times out a hundred (at least!) this would indeed be the case.

From the article, it doesn't seem that she was wandering even within easy view of a house.

A strange man pulls up and starts talking to her. What then? Do you honestly believe her parents/neighbours seeing that would not immediately assume the worst and come charging over hurling accusations (and quite probably fists) of "Paedophile! Get away from my daughter!"p

Yes, I really believe that. They might be a little suspicious. The thought might even enter their minds and cause them to come out and investigate. But unless they actually saw inappropriate behavior, most people don't assume that every random guy on the street is a child molester.

Let's assume they didn't see her fall. Thus for them it would be a case of 'look out the window to see a strange man talking to their upset and crying daughter and apparently trying to get her into his car.'
You really think any parent's first thought would be, 'There's bound to be a rational explanation for this scene'?
You really think they'd accept his explanation that he was merely stopping because he was concerned for her wellbeing and wanted to help? (which, let's face it, is most likely exactly what an actual paedo would say in order to extracate himself from the situation - thus no matter what he says would condemn him)

Yes, I do believe that most people would accept that explanation, unless there was clear reason to believe it was a lie.

And be honest with yourself here - if you did see a man stop and talk to an upset but uninjured toddler, one he admits he doesn't know, would you really believe him when he tells you he was just stopping to see if she was okay?

Yes. In fact, if I saw this happening, I'd probably be looking to do the same.

Nor would calling in the Police help - that would just convince many onlookers that the accusations of paedophilia were justified.

Huh? How many pedophiles call the police on themselves?

With current hysteria over paedos (espesh in the UK where they've even attacked a paedatrician for Heaven's sake!), rational thought has been well forgotten, left to wither and die. Knee-jerk hysteria has taken hold, fed by moronic fear-mongering courtesy of our wonderful media.

Ah, irony. It gives me warm and fuzzy feelings. You do realize that your view of this "hysteria" comes from the media itself, right? You aren't going to hear about the parents who are overjoyed that someone stopped to help their children or content in the knowledge that someone would. That isn't interesting news. What you will hear about is the crazy psycho who attacks a pediatrician. And, from that, you form your opinion that "everyone's doing it."


If this is in response to me running out into the road to grab a toddler which had a bus bearing down on him - when I first saw the kid he was sitting in the middle of the road, I did not wait for him to run out there. It is also worth pointing out that this incident happened on a busy road with a lot of people walking about - many of whom would ahve seen the kid walk out into the road long before I got there.

No, actually, it is in response to some of the scenarios related by others in the thread.

I am a parent, and I help children other than my own... BUT...

I make sure that I am never the only adult present, and it's an adult that I know and trust - not someone who doesn't know me or doesn't like me.

Can't be too careful in this regard - all it takes is one allegation to ruin your life.

Highly unlikely.

No, seriously. If anything, this is even less supported than Multiland's statements. He at least has an anecdote or two.

So you think men are doing the right thing if they ignore children in danger and let them die? How nice.

You think that most people are sexist assholes?

What, precisely, do you disagree with?



I think that most people are kneejerk idiots.

I think the men can do the right thing if they want, but they can't be blamed for not doing so if they fear for their lives and reputations, which is quite possible in my eyes.

This is essentially where we disagree.

How so? If five people are around, only one needs to report you. That's hardly a majority.

One needs to report you. Another one or two need to deem it worthy of arrest. Another one or two need to deem it worthy of a charge. And then, either a jury of your peers needs to find the accusation worthwhile, or a great deal of people need to have a poor enough opinion of you (or men in general) that they believe it if it is to truly affect you.

To pretend that one person who holds such a viewpoint could really make a large difference is ludicrous.

*shrug* The thought process generally won't make it to or past the comma.

It obviously does, since we don't go around arresting every adult in every family and every family friend on suspicion of child abuse. Instead, we do not. We generally feel that a child is safer with a family member - male or female.

What's this now? You wanted to know how I heard worse ideas without hanging out with the people saying them. What's this reply you've given me about?

Your response was a bit of a non sequitur. I've been talking about the vocal minority in response to a specific question, not general stupidity. You told me you have heard people say things along the lines of (indeed, worse than), "Everyone who goes into a bank should be reported for a possible robbery." Have you really seen signs like that?

No, seriously. If anything, this is even less supported than Multiland's statements. He at least has an anecdote or two.

I have anecdotes from my entire life experience, and the experiences of everyone I've ever known or talked to. If we're going to compare anecdotes, I'd be willing to suggest that even Multiland has more anecdotes that don't involve women assuming all men are pedophiles than the other way around.


I think that most people are kneejerk idiots.

You realize, of course, that "most people" will generally include yourself?

I think the men can do the right thing if they want, but they can't be blamed for not doing so if they fear for their lives and reputations, which is quite possible in my eyes.

This is essentially where we disagree.

Anyone who does not do the right thing can be blamed for not doing so - no matter what their reasons. If their reasons are really good enough to justify their actions, then they didn't do the wrong thing - although hindsight may suggest it.

One needs to report you. Another one or two need to deem it worthy of arrest. Another one or two need to deem it worthy of a charge. And then, either a jury of your peers needs to find the accusation worthwhile, or a great deal of people need to have a poor enough opinion of you (or men in general) that they believe it if it is to truly affect you.

To pretend that one person who holds such a viewpoint could really make a large difference is ludicrous.

One is enough to get you fired from a job involving children.

One is enough to get you removed from being something like a Boy Scout Troop Leader.

One is enough to get you kicked out of a church, synagogue, or most other places of religious worship - permabanned.

One is enough to get your name in the newspaper - and ruin your reputation.

Not easy being male. You save a child from becoming roadkill, you get branded a possible child predator. You ignore the soon-to-be-roadkill kid and you're a selfish SOB who's balls should be ripped off before the genepool is contaminated. You know why? Because too many people let the news think for them.

Here in the US, almost all of the news programs are privately owned. That means they have to worry about getting paid. They get paid by the people who put comercials on the channels. That's why they post sensational stories. A puppy-eating man gets more viewers than a new hospital being built in a third world country. A white, beautiful, somewhat rich woman makes for a more popular murder case than anything else short of a presidential assasination. That's why you hear so much about male child predators. It makes people nervous. It makes them watch the news for more information. It shapes their world view. It's why muslims are all-too-often characterized as terrorists. Because you usually only hear about the Jihadists. Because that gets more viewers. Because more viewers means more money-bringing comercials.

You know why you don't hear about women abducting boys? Because nobody wants to know that. Most people don't want to see a violent woman. It violates their world view. Women are apparently supposed to be the oppressed, not oppressors.

It's not easy being male. We're the "oppressors". We're the sex-crazed. We're either strong and stupid or smart and weak. We're supposed to be like the guys you see on tv and read in the newspaper. It's part of our cultures. Men are expected to be powerful. We aren't supposed to be weak because it's the weak that get preyed on. If a woman is weak, it's society's fault for expecting her to be weak. If she's strong, she's empowering.

Not that nature cares either way. In the eyes of Mother Nature and evolution, mankind is nothing more than baby factories and sperm banks. Not accountants or presidents or doctors. Dicks and wombs. Nothing more. Nothing less.

One is enough to get you fired from a job involving children.

Only if that one is your boss.

One is enough to get you removed from being something like a Boy Scout Troop Leader.

No, it isn't. It would take suspicion by much more than one person to achieve this.

One is enough to get you kicked out of a church, synagogue, or most other places of religious worship - permabanned.

No, it isn't. Enough of the members of said place of religious worship would have to agree (unless the one person is the priest/rabbi/etc. and there is no method for removing him).

One is enough to get your name in the newspaper - and ruin your reputation.

Not any reputable newspaper, it isn't. While it is certainly possible in some rags to get such a story run on the basis of one person's thoughts on the matter, it is highly unlikely to happen in anything even approaching reputable journalism. And even then, your reputation could only be ruined if many more than one person agreed.

Not any reputable newspaper, it isn't. While it is certainly possible in some rags to get such a story run on the basis of one person's thoughts on the matter, it is highly unlikely to happen in anything even approaching reputable journalism. And even then, your reputation could only be ruined if many more than one person agreed.

The Sun is the most "read" newspaper in Britain. The Daily Mail is second. (source, bit old admittedly) (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/150705/junenationalnewspapercirculationtimesclosingin)

You were saying about reputable newspapers..?
You give humanity too much credit.

Only if that one is your boss.

I've seen the policy in writing at a day care center - to assure parents.


No, it isn't. It would take suspicion by much more than one person to achieve this.
Speaking as a Boy Scout Troop leader, I know you're wrong. We are specifically instructed nowadays not to accept kids being dropped off at weekly meetings without at least one parent - precisely for this reason.

No, it isn't. Enough of the members of said place of religious worship would have to agree (unless the one person is the priest/rabbi/etc. and there is no method for removing him).
At my church, one allegation is enough to get you kicked out.

Not any reputable newspaper, it isn't. While it is certainly possible in some rags to get such a story run on the basis of one person's thoughts on the matter, it is highly unlikely to happen in anything even approaching reputable journalism. And even then, your reputation could only be ruined if many more than one person agreed.

What planet do you live on, that has such reputable news organizations?

Good riddance to bad rubbish is what I say. The world is overpopulated. If only we had more kids drowning in ponds.

Damn breeders!

The Sun is the most "read" newspaper in Britain. The Daily Mail is second. (source, bit old admittedly) (http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/150705/junenationalnewspapercirculationtimesclosingin)

You were saying about reputable newspapers..?
You give humanity too much credit.

"Most read" doesn't really equate to "reputable." Lots of people read the Weekly World News in the states, but most people wouldn't consider them reputable journalism or assume their veracity.

Note: I don't know much about British publications, but from context I'm guessing that the two you mentioned are not exactly in-depth journalism.


I've seen the policy in writing at a day care center - to assure parents.

So you've been to stupid day care centers. That's just asking for some asshole to come along and accuse the owner....

Speaking as a Boy Scout Troop leader, I know you're wrong. We are specifically instructed nowadays not to accept kids being dropped off at weekly meetings without at least one parent - precisely for this reason.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? You can't accept kids being dropped off without a parent, ok. What does that have to do with your assertion that any random person off the street could yell, "Child molester!" and get you kicked out?


At my church, one allegation is enough to get you kicked out.

Then you need a new church. If it takes no vote or action by the parishioners, there is a problem.


What planet do you live on, that has such reputable news organizations?

Earth. The US to be precise. Even in my city, where the most widespread newspaper sucks, you aren't going to get an article published based off of what one person says. There are always calls made to the accused, people who know the accuser and/or the accused, etc.

Hell, even in the less official publications (unless they are directly ideologically based), "Someone told me that this guy was a child molester," isn't going to get an article published.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China? You can't accept kids being dropped off without a parent, ok. What does that have to do with your assertion that any random person off the street could yell, "Child molester!" and get you kicked out?

We're told that the parent has to be present to watch you at all times, to prevent unwarranted accusations. And when we asked about accusations, they said that one is all it takes.

We're told that the parent has to be present to watch you at all times, to prevent unwarranted accusations. And when we asked about accusations, they said that one is all it takes.

Interesting. My generally high opinion of the Boy Scouts is constantly being torn down. Kind of makes me sad.

Interesting. My generally high opinion of the Boy Scouts is constantly being torn down. Kind of makes me sad.

There's a reason for it.

Lawsuits.

Plenty of cases of past abuse, that had prior accusations - but because it was only one accuser, or separate isolated incidents, no one could throw them out.

Now they can't take any chances. The alternative is to eventually be wiped out as an organization by lawsuits.

There's a reason for it.

There's a reason for most of the shitty things people do. But an organization like the Boy Scouts is supposed to hold to high standards. Churches are supposed to hold to high standards.

Without those standards, the organization should die out, as it has moved away from its purpose. An organization that would remove someone because of an accusation with no evidence behind it is not holding to high standards. They are selling out to fear.

Lawsuits.

Plenty of cases of past abuse, that had prior accusations - but because it was only one accuser, or separate isolated incidents, no one could throw them out.

The number of accusers is not the issue here - the evidence behind it is. If there is reasonable evidence that something improper happened, it makes sense to further supervise that person and, depending on the strength of said evidence, perhaps let them go. If, on the other hand, you have one person's word against another's and nothing else to go on, you have nothing.

Now they can't take any chances. The alternative is to eventually be wiped out as an organization by lawsuits.

Being wiped out as an organization is better than giving up the morals and standards in which that organization was based. An organization like The Boy Scouts can't stoop to such levels. Between this and the general antipathy towards homosexuals and atheists, at this point, I can no longer profess any support whatsoever for the organization as a whole, although individual troops may still actually attempt to live up to the ideals on which it is supposed to be based.

"Most read" doesn't really equate to "reputable." Lots of people read the Weekly World News in the states, but most people wouldn't consider them reputable journalism or assume their veracity.
Exactly ;)
Although a depressing number of people here think that because it's in a newspaper it's true. It's basically accepted that New Labour won in 1997 because the Sun switched their allegience from the Tories to Blair; they have a lot of power.

Note: I don't know much about British publications, but from context I'm guessing that the two you mentioned are not exactly in-depth journalism.

The Sun's redeeming feature is bare boobs on page three.
The Mail's redeeming feature is that... Um... Well, it officially stopped supporting Hitler before World War II. Although you'd not believe it. (See any thread where a story from the Daily Mail is commented on)

If you see them anywhere pick them up and read them. You might find it... Interesting.

The number of accusers is not the issue here - the evidence behind it is. If there is reasonable evidence that something improper happened, it makes sense to further supervise that person and, depending on the strength of said evidence, perhaps let them go. If, on the other hand, you have one person's word against another's and nothing else to go on, you have nothing.

The problem is that in civil suits, you don't have to convince a jury "beyond a reasonabl doubt" - that is, the jury doesn't have to be unanimous. It only has to decide on a "preponderance of the evidence" as felt by the jury. Only 2 out of 3 jurors have to vote against you, and you're done.

Now, if you haven't kicked people out before on isolated accusations, and that person eventually gets to an incident involving two simultaneous accusers, those previous accusations will come up - and a jury will probably view that, in conjunction with the latest accusations, as a preponderance of evidence. You're done. Better to kick people out, and not take the chance.

The problem is that in civil suits, you don't have to convince a jury "beyond a reasonabl doubt" - that is, the jury doesn't have to be unanimous. It only has to decide on a "preponderance of the evidence" as felt by the jury. Only 2 out of 3 jurors have to vote against you, and you're done.

Now, if you haven't kicked people out before on isolated accusations, and that person eventually gets to an incident involving two simultaneous accusers, those previous accusations will come up - and a jury will probably view that, in conjunction with the latest accusations, as a preponderance of evidence. You're done. Better to kick people out, and not take the chance.

Not if you want the trust of your members and to be seen as a moral institution.

General Posting

You give humans too much credit. While I admire optimism in the face of adversity, your levels of optimism for how the human race responds to such things would lead to many people panning for gold in their own showers.

Quite simply - the majority of the human race does not apply such subjective though as yourself, or as you *claim* you apply. They are reactionary thoughtless beasts. As a Two metre tall, 110kg male with a very muscular build who has to turn sideways to walk thogh many doorways I can generally ignore such worries of vigalente reactions of people turning violent against me for running out into traffic to pick up a child, however most men do not share this luxary and so when they consider their actions they do so in a realistic fear that they will face severe violence for trying to help a child, and so in fear of their own safety decide to let someone else take the chance.

In the case of the child in the article we are debating I severely doubt thet the person who came forward was the only person who saw the child, and yet nobody else decided to stop either - due to either 'cant be bothered' or through fear of vigalente action. It is a sad state of affairs we live in, but it would be foolish for many to ignore the realities of the situation

Not if you want the trust of your members and to be seen as a moral institution.

*shrug* We seem to be getting off here. No one is unsure about the moral thing to do. It's just not a smart thing to do.

You give humans too much credit. While I admire optimism in the face of adversity, your levels of optimism for how the human race responds to such things would lead to many people panning for gold in their own showers.

Exaggerate much?

Quite simply - the majority of the human race does not apply such subjective though as yourself, or as you *claim* you apply.

Did you mean to say subjective?

They are reactionary thoughtless beasts.

This seems to be a suggestion that they don't think at all - not that they apply a specific type of thought.

Do you realize that when you say something like "the majority of the human race," you are most likely included in the number?

As a Two metre tall, 110kg male with a very muscular build who has to turn sideways to walk thogh many doorways I can generally ignore such worries of vigalente reactions of people turning violent against me for running out into traffic to pick up a child, however most men do not share this luxary and so when they consider their actions they do so in a realistic fear that they will face severe violence for trying to help a child, and so in fear of their own safety decide to let someone else take the chance.

I don't see any reason to label such a fear as "realistic." At best, it is just as much of a knee-jerk, unthinking reaction as those who would actually assume the man is doing harm.

In the case of the child in the article we are debating I severely doubt thet the person who came forward was the only person who saw the child, and yet nobody else decided to stop either - due to either 'cant be bothered' or through fear of vigalente action. It is a sad state of affairs we live in, but it would be foolish for many to ignore the realities of the situation

Why do you doubt that? From the article, it would seem that it wasn't a very well-traveled area and that she wasn't exactly walking on the road.

*shrug* We seem to be getting off here. No one is unsure about the moral thing to do. It's just not a smart thing to do.

If an institution will not take the moral action over the possibly self-preserving action, then that institution cannot reasonably portray itself as a moral-building institution.

And if it truly isn't the "smart" thing to do, then the role of an organization like the Boy Scouts should be to help change that.

One is enough to get your name in the newspaper - and ruin your reputation.

Calling someone a child molester is defamatory - far too defamatory to be published on nothing but the say-so of one person.
Any newspaper which published such a claim would have no defence against the (almost inevitable) libel action.
If the police were already investigating that person over such allegations, then the paper could also be liable for a contempt of court charge. And that's worse - libel costs you money; contempt of court can get you jailed.

Exaggerate much?
[..]
Do you realize that when you say something like "the majority of the human race," you are most likely included in the number?


Your optimism is admirable, but I think now the debate is a question of empirical validity. I would be fascinated to see a properly designed social psychology study to test prejudice in the wider population, as someone has already suggested. Comparing gender differences is still highly 'fashionable' in that field, so it shouldn't be difficult to see whether misandrist bigotry is as prevalent as has been claimed.

Your optimism is admirable, but I think now the debate is a question of empirical validity. I would be fascinated to see a properly designed social psychology study to test prejudice in the wider population, as someone has already suggested. Comparing gender differences is still highly 'fashionable' in that field, so it shouldn't be difficult to see whether misandrist bigotry is as prevalent as has been claimed.

It would be interesting to see a well-done study on the subject - although it would be difficult subject matter to test. The problem with social surveys is that respondents will often answer with what they think is best or what they think the researchers want to hear, rather than what is true. It's difficult to pry it out.

But, in general, it would be interesting to see. So far, what I've seen is people coming to snap-conclusions based on anecdotes and the stories actually reported by the media - precisely what they say others should *not* be using to form conclusions.

If an institution will not take the moral action over the possibly self-preserving action, then that institution cannot reasonably portray itself as a moral-building institution.

And if it truly isn't the "smart" thing to do, then the role of an organization like the Boy Scouts should be to help change that.

Mmhmm. You're doing a lot of preaching to people who share your morals. institutions should take the moral action. They should work to change that. I'm right with you there. Unfortunately, that's not the point. They don't. And that's why it just takes one person. As I was saying before.

But, in general, it would be interesting to see. So far, what I've seen is people coming to snap-conclusions based on anecdotes and the stories actually reported by the media

And what have I snapped to?

It would be interesting to see a well-done study on the subject - although it would be difficult subject matter to test. The problem with social surveys is that respondents will often answer with what they think is best or what they think the researchers want to hear, rather than what is true. It's difficult to pry it out..

Those problems (called "social desirability" response sets) are concerns. But well designed studies can account for such effects.

But, in general, it would be interesting to see. So far, what I've seen is people coming to snap-conclusions based on anecdotes and the stories actually reported by the media - precisely what they say others should *not* be using to form conclusions.

Well, you must admit that out of a relatively narrow slice of the population (NS forum participants), the number of people with personal (ie. not just "my mate's brother in law..") experiences is interesting at least. And I have also raised at least one instance of institutional sexism by a major regional airline with a policy that disallows unattended minors being seated next to men.

All in all, I'd say it's worth checking out.

A newspaper isn't ever allowed to say "____is a child molester" Even if there are 1000 witnesses and video evidence and the defender pleads guilty and the courts find him guilty. Even then they still can only say "_____ is a man who was convicted of child molesting"

Mmhmm. You're doing a lot of preaching to people who share your morals. institutions should take the moral action. They should work to change that. I'm right with you there. Unfortunately, that's not the point. They don't. And that's why it just takes one person. As I was saying before.

No, it takes several people. The institutions who give in are a part of the problem. Those who made the policy are people as well, you know.

And what have I snapped to?

The idea that a fairly large proportion of people share these views.

Which is certainly better than many in this thread, who have jumped to the conclusion that most women or even most people have such views.

The idea that a large proportion of people share these views.

*shrug* What makes you say the proportion isn't large enough?

Which is certainly better than many in this thread, who have jumped to the conclusion that most women or even most people have such views.

Yay for better than many! ^_^

No, it takes several people. The institutions who give in are a part of the problem. Those who made the policy are people as well, you know.

I meant it takes one person's accusation to cause considerable damage to someone's life. One accusation as the world is now. Not how we imagine, not how it should be, not in a moral world. Our world. As is. Right now.

Exaggerate much?

A little, however your optimisism for peoples ability to think things through rationally is somewhat unwarrented.


Did you mean to say subjective?

Oops. 'Objective' would be the word I was aiming for.


This seems to be a suggestion that they don't think at all - not that they apply a specific type of thought.
Given that when a daily rag started printing photos of convicted pedophiles a number of men who shared some resembelence with them were attacked in the street and other men who were padoatricians were attacked in their homes by large mobs of people I think that on this issue people are very reactionary and really don't think things through. On many issues people are like this. As much as it might improve the world if people had a general tendancy to actually think about their actions most people don't do this.


Do you realize that when you say something like "the majority of the human race," you are most likely included in the number?
The majority of the human race is under 6'tall too, but that does not mean I am. Saying the 'majority of the human race' not not automatically include the person saying it in the observation.



I don't see any reason to label such a fear as "realistic." At best, it is just as much of a knee-jerk, unthinking reaction as those who would actually assume the man is doing harm.
On this board alone we have a guy who was pepper sprayed, another guy whose dad was tasred and a good friend of mine who spent several hours in a police cell. The fear is realistic.

A newspaper isn't ever allowed to say "____is a child molester" Even if there are 1000 witnesses and video evidence and the defender pleads guilty and the courts find him guilty. Even then they still can only say "_____ is a man who was convicted of child molesting"

Was Michael Jackson ever convicted of anything of that nature.

If he were a regular Joe, living in an apartment building and had accusations
made against him in the nature of the ones made against Mr Jackson
would he still have a job, still be living in his apartment building,
would he have suffered threats and possibly physical violence because
of those accusations.

Newspapers can report that an accusation has been made, or that
someone is being investigated.
They can report that computers, videos and photographs have been
taken from the person by the police.
Newspapers are allowed to report facts, people will often jump to conclusions
about what those facts mean.
In other words someone can quickly become perceived to be a child molestor
without a newspaper saying he is one.

I meant it takes one person's accusation to cause considerable damage to someone's life. One accusation as the world is now. Not how we imagine, not how it should be, not in a moral world. Our world. As is. Right now.

All we need is the Internet.

=
All this happened because i ran to the aid of my daughter. So please don't tell me most women don't discriminate against an unknown man being near a child.

Ummm.... I will tell you most women don't discriminate against an unknown man being near a child. I see men out with their children all the time as do most of my friends male or female and none of us have every thought anything of it. Second, a story just as this on the internet, even without the preceeding logic shouldn't be enough to make someone believe females are any less rational than males. Just because you can come up (not that you did) with a story such as that does reflect female behaviour at all.

A sad sad fact of our society.