.. 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"?

My grandson used to attend a nursery with male staff, I think it was only two but could have been three. It never crossed my mind it could be a problem, my son and DIL thought it was great as grandson really liked him. Meanwhile in Plymouth a female member of staff was abusing children and was convicted and jailed, can't remember her name. None of us even thought how great that grandson had a male carer as women are obviously paedophiles.

Jassy - because I asked the question with "potential" and Bert answered with "likely. I assumed from that that she was equating the two. Either that or dodging the actual question, bit like a politician.

Safe people accept boundaries and rules. Its up to other people to prove they are safe over a period of time. Trust is earned in risky situations, not owned by default then lost.
We manage risk with probabilities in real life.

My son is a nurse. He is 6ft 3in tall and has no worries about his masculinity. He gets fed up with the "nurse" jokes. He is bloody good at his job and if he is your nurse then you should thank your lucky stars you got him. I admit I am biased but his manager feels the same so not just me.

And yes, assuming a man is likely to be a paedophile is grim and ridiculous, but in my opinion no more grim and ridiculous as assuming a man is likely to be a rapist.

I guess I was trying to work out why Bert appears to think that the former is misandry but the latter isn't.

Gosh, is this the thread where folk sign in to say how much we appreciate the gazillion ways that MN teaches us that WE ARE NOT FEMINISTS. And the feminist club would never have people like us. I thought I had that message by now, but there are always new ways to learn it. Who knew?

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?

For me, this is very insightful. It's making me think. Hard.

There have been strong objections to the idea that any man is a potential rapist ("All men are potential rapists.")

There are also a lot of threads on MN from time to time about bringing boys into women's changing rooms/bathrooms. Emotions run high on these threads. I always understand from the mums who are taking older boys into women's public toilets and changing rooms (over 7) that they do it out of fear that their sons will be vulnerable around strange men, not because the boys are incapable of handling buttons, zips, etc.

Recently at the Debenham's loo on Oxford Street, I was in a long queue and there was a mum with a son who looked about 11 (he could have been a tall 9 or 10 year old, though.) He looked extremely upset, on the verge of tears. His mum was very cross with him and muttering at him. All the women in the queue assumed that he was humiliated to be in the "ladies room" because he was old enough to feel he did not belong there. A few minutes later mum said something like, "Well alright! You are pushing me to edge!" After they bolted, there were lots of murmurings of "poor lad." I kept quiet and just considered to myself all the MN threads I had read over the years and decided to give the poor mum a break. She has her reasons, she has her fears. Better to understand than to judge.

When parents of DDs teach those DDs in essence (they probably don't use the words) that all men are potential rapists, why is it any worse? Isn't it the same abundance of caution for the same reasons?

"Jassy - because I asked the question with "potential" and Bert answered with "likely. I assumed from that that she was equating the two. Either that or dodging the actual question, bit like a politician."

Looking back I think I said "likely" because I was talking about the people who think that male child care workers are "likely" to be paedophiles, and therefore won't trust their children to them.

What question do you think I'm dodging?

Bert - my post at 09:59.

Why are you baffled Itsmine? To me, both fears seem to be coming from the same place for the same reasons.

80Kgirl - I know your question is addressed to Itsmine, but for me the bafflement is that although the fear is from the same place, one is generally considered sensible and OK while the other is generally considered paranoid and ridiculous.

"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 think the issue here is that not all men are potential paedophiles. For the overwhelming majority of men they are no more likely to commit an act of paedophilia than fly. But you only have to read the relationship boards, or talk to a group of women to discover that a worryingly large number of them have had sex when they didn't want to. Men who don't understand about consent, or who have unthinkingly absorbed the messages about sex perpetuated by porn* are likely to have un consensual sex. They may not perceive what they have done as rape, but it is.

I agree with you Milk.

To be honest, I would think an 18 year old girl at a party at university freshers week is statistically more likely to be assaulted than a 9 year old boy is using the men's toilets.

Sorry, the bolding is random- please ignore.

The thread will have moved on by now, but Mrs DeVere, your post on page one is spot on.

And as for the boys in women's changing rooms thing, my issue with that is not that 9 year old boys are sexual predators, but the message it sends to girls that their want- to have a changing room without 9 year old boys in it- is considered secondary to the wants of boys. And the perpetuation of the idea that men are dangerous to children.

Bert, the overwhelming majority of men are neither likely to commit an act of paedophilia or rape.

Surely not all men are potential rapists in the same way as not all men are potential paedophiles though. Just because some are doesn't mean all are.

What comes up on the relationship board is not relevant to all men any more or less than what comes up in support groups for victims of paedophiles is relevant to all men.

the message it sends to girls that their want- to have a changing room without 9 year old boys in it- is considered secondary to the wants of boys

Don't you advocate that safety comes first? Should a 9 year old boy be left alone with strange adults because to address that risk would hurt someone's feelings?

Itsmine- can you do me a favour? Before you post again, could you look up the meaning of the word "hypocritical"? You've called me it about 100 times- and it never makes any sense!

Bert - I think as a general rule 9 yr old boys on changing rooms are due to the wants of their mothers, y'know - fellow women.

The problem is Slarti, is certain feminists on here want consent to be an order signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public enquiry, lost again and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters

None of the above? Then it was definitely rape

And yes, assuming a man is likely to be a paedophile is grim and ridiculous, but in my opinion no more grim and ridiculous as assuming a man is likely to be a rapist

Yep, agreed.

But. Women are raised from childhood to treat men with caution. To keep themselves safe. To protect ourselves from those with the potential to harm. To not walk alone at night, etc etc, because sometimes men do bad things to women, and we know and are taught that those man can look like anyone, and that happens pretty often in our culture. And so we avoid certain situations, and in other situations we exercise caution, because you can't tell who the good guys are. And we size men up for potential risk, because we've been told that's our job, and because we want to be safe.

It's not nice for anyone, is it? It's not nice for men not to feel automatically trusted, and it's not nice for women not to feel automatically safe. That's the reality of living in a culture where sexual assault and rape are relatively common. Good men don't get a pass from the not nice bits simply because they are not the main recipients of the violence.

But here's the difference between these situations - men aren't denied employment opportunities because women exercise caution around men because some of them rape. However men are denied employment opportunities because some people 'feel weird' about the idea of male childcare workers and feel they are likely to be dangerous rather than simply potentially dangerous. So men are less likely to train for those roles, some employers are less likely to hire because their customers might be put off.

But the reality is we do the same sort checks with all childcare workers and settings as we'd do in evaluating a situation for the risk of rape or assault. We look at the risks involved in anywhere we leave our children and how they are or can be mitigated.