.. to think that "I fear for my sons" and ..

[BertrandRussell]

"I feel sorry for my sons" are just new ways of saying "I hate feminists"?

"All extremism is bad in my opinion, people who get so wrapped up in propoganda are an absolute danger to others and to the cause they started out to help."

I agree.

Sorry, itsmine- what would you like me to address?

I think it is, actually. I'm very comfortable with the idea that saying 'women aren't good at x, y or z jobs because biology' is misogynist.

So saying 'men can't be good and safe childcare workers because biology' is an equal statement in being misandrist, surely? Unless there's something I'm missing?

I do hope the people who object to "male tears" mugs also object every time a woman is told to "lighten up" or to "take a joke" when she complains about page 3, or sexist advertising slogans (like the Office one currently the subject of a thread on here) or all the other things that are "just a bit of fun"

Why wouldn't we?

Oh, do you want to keep talking about the use of the word "brigade"?

As I said. I am happy to be part of the feminist brigade!

I'm glad you do! It's just that such threads always seem to be mostly populated by the "lighten up" brigade!

I agree with pp. if someone had used 'feminist brigade' there would have been hell.

You can choose to call it whatever you want Bertrand. A rose by any other name and all that. It is very telling, however, that you should resist using the word misandry. Seems to prove the point I made in my last post.

I doubt that if someone suggested women shouldn't do a certain job you would promote the use of "stupidity" over "misogyny". I doubt that very much indeed. Again, it's revealing of your entrenched attitude on this subject, imo.

While a man who wants to be a nursery nurse is being discriminated against, the root of the sexism is still in the fear/hatred/dislike/devaluing of women and "womanly" things.

In nearly all cases it's "women's stuff" that is valued less or considered to be worse, and "man's stuff" that is valued more highly.

Women shouldn't be lawyers and doctors and politicians because their little brains can't cope with it and they should be at home making dinner.

Men shouldn't be nurses or look after small children because that's women's work and is therefore crap - there must be something wrong with a man if he wants to do that.

Little girls who want to do boyish things are tomboys - it's understandable that they would want to do boy things because boy things are great, but they are reaching too high.

Little boys who want to do girl things as sissies, they must be prevented from doing rubbish girly stuff because it'll make them weak or turn them gay.

It's not that "men are not good enough to do women's work". It's that "any man who wants to do women's work must have something wrong with him".

"think it is, actually. I'm very comfortable with the idea that saying 'women aren't good at x, y or z jobs because biology' is misogynist.

So saying 'men can't be good and safe childcare workers because biology' is an equal statement in being misandrist, surely? Unless there's something I'm missing?"

I can see your point. But the child care thing is not "because male biology" it's "because some men are paedophiles". Not because men as a class are less able to look after small children. But maybe I'm nit picking.

I think the "men don't see dirt" thing is misandrist, by the way. And all the other universally accepted views of men as incapable of buying presents, remembering birthdays or cooking dinner.

If saying "all men are paedophiles" is misandry, what is "all men are potential paedophiles"?

Is it OK to assume a man you don't know is a potential paedophile like it's considered OK to assume a man you don't know is a potential rapist?

I agree on your last paragraph. And oh, there are some grim adverts out there riffing on the 'incapable man' theme.

On the former - maybe but it's a bit more nuanced than that isn't it? It's not 'I worry a man is more likely statistically to be a paedophile than a woman' I hear, it's people who say that men who want to work in childcare are 'weird' or something is 'off' about a man who wants to work with children. And that does strike me as decidedly misandrist.

"Is it OK to assume a man you don't know is a potential paedophile like it's considered OK to assume a man you don't know is a potential rapist?"

Well, I wouldn't leave my child in the care of anyone I didn't know or who was not a professional. The issue here is that some people think that men who are professional child care workers are likely to be paedophiles.

Jassy has hit the nail on the head. The assumption that a man who wants to work with children is automatically suspect is misandrist.

Although Trills makes a good point, and I wonder if there's a circularity here - a form of misandry that is actually rooted in misogyny?

Bert - is it OK to treat a man as a potential paedophile, like it is considered OK to assume a man is a potential rapist? Yes or no?

If the issue is that some people think that men who are child care workers are likely to be paedophiles, is that not OK but some people thinking that men in any setting are likely to be rapists is OK?

I don't think that can be a "yes or no".
For example, any woman meeting a man for the first time when OLD would be foolish not to consider that he might be a rapist.

People who work with children are background checked, so thats a disingenuous argument.
Safe men who dont rape women tend to be ok with boundaries.

Rule one is stay safe.

Thanks Jassy - glad I made some sort of sense there.

Background checks only prove that someone hasn't been convicted or accused of anything so we assume them to be "safe".

A man who has never been convicted or accused of rape in the past must be "safe" then.

Is it foolish to consider a man who is a child care worker might be a paedophile?

I remember talking to a young woman in Russia a million years ago and she was amazed that medicine was considered a high status profession in the UK. In Russia then most doctors were women and it was definitely low status.

Milk, why did you switch from 'potential' to 'likely' between your two paragraphs?

If we are following evidence parents need to consider than anyone in a childcare setting has the potential to be a paedophile, though it is rare for childcare workers of either sex to be paedophiles. It's part of general parental awareness. But treating men who like working with kids as likely to be paedophiles is ridiculous and grim, yes?

"to consider a man who is a child care worker might be a paedophile?"

Not foolish to consider it, no. But child care workers are checked, trained and supervised.

Yabu. I fear for my sons, but because of the awful gender stereotyping they are STILL expected to live up to. Feminism for me, is part of the solution not the reason I 'fear'.