Eh? Where have I said that all men are not to be trusted with children. That's a preposterous conclusion to make.
My ref to NAMALT was merely to highlight the ridiculousness of your inclusion of Myra Hindley/Rose West in the discussion we are having here which is essentially about PT and his ok-ing sex of 9-13 year olds with adults. Imo it has no place here on this thread because I see you in my head waving your hands and saying NAMALT what about the women? They abuse children too doncha know.
I think you've got your wires crossed. Nobody here isn't for safeguarding children across the board.
Apologies for not stating things more clearly and for any unintentional offence, @PipGoesPop, I was referring to several PPs who, shall we say, somewhat disagreed with what I had written and I quoted you intending to convey the (then) conclusion of the mini side-thread of dissenters.
It was actually @LucilleBluth who wrote ”This is why women have to remain the gatekeepers to children.” and that is what my original reply was sparked by.
I don't dispute that the vast majority of child physical & sexual abusers are men, but I am equally aware that the vast majority of men are NOT child abusers.
The implied knee-jerk suggestion that men cannot and should not be trusted with the care and safety of children, if taken to its logical conclusion, would have a number of negative effects.
Many kind, patient men with a natural affinity for relating to and working with children would be summarily denied the opportunity to use their skills, just because they happen to be male.
This then gives the clear message to children (some of whom may not have (m)any male role models) that looking after and teaching youngsters is something that only females can do, and therefore must feel duty-bound to take all responsibility for; whilst the conscientious men are ordered out and the less-than-conscientious men are given clear justification for doing nothing. Those who DO have good fathers might also come to understand that, however kind and loving their father is, if he is male (which most are), then he should be kept at a distance and not trusted, whilst mum is expected to do absolutely everything for and with them.
This would also reinforce the opinion of a great many prejudiced but influential people (mainly men) that there are men's jobs and women's jobs and that equal opportunities for all was a calamitous mistake and must now be urgently reversed.
Women are then given the clear message that traditional men's jobs are not for them. CEO of a successful company?! YOU: a woman?! As if!!!! They should be at home all the time and dealing with absolutely everything to do with the children for whose conception they were only 50% responsible.
And when it comes to the value and subsequent levels of pay that are accorded to men's and women's jobs, I think we all know only too well how that invariably goes.
If men aren't to be trusted working with or caring for children then maybe it follows that woman can't be trusted with anything ELSE???
Of course, we have safeguarding procedures and checks which must remain mandatory and be strictly enforced for all adults working with children - that's a very clear given.