I can't remember if it was on this thread or the other, but I think it's very interesting how peedo manfear is at root an aggressive drive for social conservatism. Essentially
it's saying that men can't be trusted around small children. Ergo only women are considered 'safe' as carers for children, ergo men are excluded from involvement with children. So then men like MIFLAW and other examples we've heard feel they're viewed with suspicion if interacting with children, and many will back away from childcare. And how on earth are we supposed to insist that it's a good and valuable thing for parenting to be a shared responsibility if we're also saying that men should keep their distance from children?
IMO it's a reaction to the gradual blurring of gender roles in our postindustrial society. There are fewer 'male' jobs around, an increase in the number of more 'genderless' information worker type jobs, a slow but steady increase in the number of SAHDs and a concurrent softening of any kind of solid basis for stereotypes around 'male' and 'female' behaviour.
I reckon you could argue that peedomanfear is a related phenomenon to pornification. Pornification is IMO at least partly a reactionary backlash against women's increasing economic power in the workforce. As in, 'ok then dear, go earn a salary, but don't forget to wreck your back with 4in heels and hack your body around with toxins and plastic implants, you're still here for men's delectation and don't you forget it'. So women feel inadequate, female self-esteem takes a hit, women are on the back foot even as they're getting ahead in the workplace, the gender divide is maintained, all is peaceful.
Peedomanfear is an equally reactionary backlash against the gradual change in social expectations around men, towards a softer, more caring attitude - whether that's male nursery workers, SAHDs, the expectation that men should be willing and able to express feelings etc. What's implied by peedomanfear is that any man who shows caring behaviour towards a child should be under suspicion of being sick and perverted. The consequences are, again, reactionary - men back away, into the more old-fashioned 'distant' male stereotype. The gender divide is restored, all is peaceful.
Unless you believe in gender equality, that is. If you do, then it's clear that it's just as important to fight for men's right to traditionally 'female' attributes as it is to fight for women's right to traditionally 'male' ones. It's in everyone's interests to do that. Until it's ok for men to take and be trusted in 'caring' roles traditionally thought of as female, the business of caring will always, in the end, fall to women.