To believe that a sizeable chunk of MN holds these opinions?

[MrManager]

The situation described here.

It seems a lot of people, mainly women ime, will assume 'paedophile' very quickly.

Well, ChaoticChristmasAngelCrackers, you won't get it. We both know that. But I think it is clear from the article what the guard's attitudes were, I have experienced similar things myself, and other posters here have also described similar scenarios where they assumed the browsing man was a paedo. Can you prove that he absolutely wasn't considering it?

Wow what are you 6?

Having a penis may make you male, but it takes a lot more than that to be a man. Get it now honey?

Since you didn't answer my question, I'm guessing the answer is yes, which doesn't surprise me.

And what does it take, specifically, to be a man or a woman then TyraG? Because to me all it takes is the relevant genitalia and 18 years.

And I'm not surprised you think like that. Especially since you think most if not all MN thinks paedo when they see a man buying girls undies.

And with that I'll take my leave. After all it's unfair to try and engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

I'm not surprised to see you slinking off when faced with a question you can't answer, TyraG.

And you're so fully armed with wit that you have to borrow quotes from Oscar Wilde.

The article is from the pov of the man who 'thinks' he was being suspected of paedophilia, hardly a balanced article.

Btw it does take more than make genitalia and 18 years to be a man, amongst other things it takes maturity.

MrManager - I'd let it be, if I were you.

I've just come to this thread this morning and have read it all...it swiftly descended into what I term "passive-aggressive trolling behaviour" ? whereby some posters (they know who they are) twist your words and then berate you, seeking to get a rise out of you and then, if/when they manage to do so, they cry foul and storm off in a huff of confected outrage.

I think your original post (and its linked article) had a valid point for discussion but the chances of this thread returning to intellectual analysis (as opposed to continuing on its downward spiral towards gender-driven abuse) are slim indeed.

In my opinion, there is certainly a trend towards increased suspicion of men as potential paedophiles and a blinkered unwillingness to concede that some, probably most, are decent Dads. But it is important to remember the reasons why some people engage in arguments of this type ? some are hurt from past experiences and seek to lash out at easy targets?some see the world in black and white with no grey areas at all ? remember the way feminists used to try to frame the debate over rape in terms of men who have raped and men who have not?yet?

Rise above the froth and blather ? engage only in articulate, intellectual debate on those subjects with which you feel comfortable and/or on which you have some experience and avoid, avoid, avoid those that seek to goad you into lashing out.

I think its a bit of a leap for the shopper to assume the security guard thought he was a paedophile rather than a shoplifter. If the shopper was a paedophile, what would the security guard do about it. Its not against the law for anyone, including paedophiles to buy pants.

Its an even bigger leap to assume that a sizeable chunk of mns will think a man buying pants is a paedophile. Most mns have children and those children mostly have a father so mns are probable more accustomed than the gen pop to men buying children's clothes. I think both assumtions are a bit bizzare.

Its a little obtuse to say that MN isn't overwhelmingly female. Its also a bit off to mention 'mainly women' in the OP then say you didn't say anything about women, only 'parents'. Backpeddleing a bit aren't you, especially as the group least likely to think a man buying pants is a paedophile is a male parent. I think its clear that you think that all/most women or at least mothers have an all/most men are paedophile complex and I think you are wrong. Why do you think MNs think this?

'some see the world in black and white with no grey areas at all'

That describes the link to the MRA blog in the OP.

The shopper got upset because a security guard was rude to him. He assumed a reason for it, that may or not be true. The OP then decides that the assumed reason also applies to 'sizeable chunk of MN'.

Do you think that is a reasonable assumption to make GuardianReader?

Ah - now. Are you all from that Guardian group/blog/forum thing which slags mumsnet off all the time?

I am sure you're from somewhere like that. is this why you came here?

Can I be froth? Actually, blather might be more exciting.

Hmm, it's a difficult one. What's better, froth or blather?

What do mean by the phrase "a woman in the 'security guard' role"? It's a very odd way of saying female security guard. Do you imply that a woman having a job is playing some sort of role as opposed to 'owning' the position she fills?

A woman in the 'doctor' role.
A woman in the 'astronaut' role.
A woman in the 'barrister' role.
A woman in the 'stripper' role.

GuardianReader -- 'But it is important to remember the reasons why some people engage in arguments of this type ? some are hurt from past experiences and seek to lash out at easy targets' And your point is?

That was a despicable post, GuardianReader.

But at least it suggests that maybe there are victims of abuse by men out there, and therefore there are good reasons to be suspicious of a man who seemingly had nothing better to do on a weekday afternoon than hang around in the children's underwear section, where presumably there were young children and their parents trying to shop for underwear.

There's no smoke without fire.

And Aitch -- how do you feel about all the troll-hunting in this thread?

I think your original post (and its linked article) had a valid point for discussion but the chances of this thread returning to intellectual analysis (as opposed to continuing on its downward spiral towards gender-driven abuse) are slim indeed.

Guardian Reader. I agree there might have been a valid point for discussion

However, the OP was worded in a deliberately inflammatory way ("AIBU to assume a sizeable chunk of MN ...") and it follows that people will get inflamed. I think he was doing the goading, in contrast to what you say in your last paragraph

JamieLeeCurtis This is not the first poorly-worded thread title in AIBU, so give me a little slack. The title wasn't consciously inflammatory.

And I think my follow up comments showed I wasn't trying to goad, just start a discussion. Never really took off though, people just seemed to take offense.

'But it is important to remember the reasons why some people engage in arguments of this type ? some are hurt from past experiences and seek to lash out at easy targets'

Gee, I wonder why people just seem to take offense?

I think that bit was referring to the posters lashing out at me, mathanxiety.

No it wasn't, MrManager -- read the post of 11:36:43 from GuardianReader. GR thinks those arguing against you are basing their opinions on some deep personal hurt and sense of grievance, as opposed to being able to carry on any sort of objective debate. Patronising and dismissive all at the same time.

On re-reading the thread I think that the only inference you can draw from (the limited sample-size of) your experiences (and the experiences of the bloke in the blog) is that security guards are sometimes suspicious of the wrong people.

Therefore I reject the premise that any of this has anything to do with women in general or MN in particular.

And I wouldn't start an AIBU without taking care over my wording.

Oh, OK, mathanxiety.

I thought you were implying that I was the one lashing out at the easy targets, having been hurt from past experiences, and that my lashing out was being taken offense at.

But you meant that her implication that people were lashing out was itself offensive? I think I understand.

But, JamieLeeCurtis, how many women have actually met a paedophile? And yet most women would take precautions to protect their child from being taken, despite their experiences.

For the last fucking time (excuse the intensifier but this must be the fifth time I've said it) I did not say that these attitudes are exclusive to MN or exclusive to women or shared by all MN or shared by all women. I said that a sizeable chunk of MN believes it, which I still believe. I also said that in my experiences of this topic, it has been predominantly women, some men, but ~75% women, that have clearly assumed I had some paedophilic (?) intentions.

I think the wording is fine. It describes exactly what I intended.

I just don't agree. You are not describing me at all. Paedophiles are very low on my list of things to worry about. What's more, I am on MN quite a lot and it's my impression that when (for instance) people express worries about male nursery nurses etc, a great swathe of people come on and make rational, yet impassioned arguments as to why the person is being irrational.

Not the implication that people were lashing out (this is AIBU after all), but the implication that people who may have experienced an injury at the hands of a man are incapable of looking rationally at any question regarding paedophilia or possible paedophilia, MrManager.

'Clearly assumed you had some paedophilic intentions'? So it was your blog then?

Yes...I acutally think you are MrM