"Men are fundamentally more selfish"
Daily Pundit has a good post on why men do not want to become Big Brothers: BECAUSE OF THE FEAR OF CHILD ABUSE ALLEGATIONS--Duh....why does anyone question this and try to make the lame argument that men are selfish?
The media blares non-stop stories about perverts (men, of course, women can't be perverts--they are "educators of young men") snatching girls, police detectives and even Ms. America trying to entrap men on the internet, domestic violence committed by men only and teachers (usually male) going to jail or fired for abuse allegations, the Duke rape case etc. And the BB/BS can't figure out why any self-respecting man does not want to go within fifty feet of a child? Get a clue.
Steven Rhoads, author of "Taking Sex Differences Seriously," agrees with Prof. Putnam that women are much more social. But he focuses more on what he views as innate differences between the sexes. Men, he argues, are "fundamentally more selfish." Unlike women, "they're simply less interested in people. And they're less empathetic." According to Mr. Rhoads, the trick to getting them to volunteer lies in appealing to men's egos, even their sense of duty and heroism. "Men need to be needed," he tells me. "Make it clear: We need you and this is really important."
The media blares non-stop stories about perverts (men, of course, women can't be perverts--they are "educators of young men") snatching girls, police detectives and even Ms. America trying to entrap men on the internet, domestic violence committed by men only and teachers (usually male) going to jail or fired for abuse allegations, the Duke rape case etc. And the BB/BS can't figure out why any self-respecting man does not want to go within fifty feet of a child? Get a clue.
Labels: Male Bashing
posted by Helen at 7:52 AM
178 Comments:
Jeez, they're clueless.
Every baseball coach I had was male. Were they all "more selfish" than the neighborhood women, who never coached a single team in their lifetime?
Men volunteer for masculine tasks. Count the female volunteer firefighters.
Big Brothers/Big Sisters is a noble organization full of noble volunteers (disclosure: my wife is one of them). Undoubtedly, all the molestation media-hype makes a good excuse for men who didn't really want to join BBBS anyway. But inherently, that group tilts toward the feminine side, owing to its nurturing aspects.
BTW, between a full-time job and the needs of my children, house, spouse, and church, I don't know when I (or many other male heads-of-household) would ever find time to volunteer for anything more.
Nail straight on the head.
In a society where no good deed goes unpunished, I would never consider becoming a big brother.
Sadly, there are enough self-hating males to either write this stuff or sign on to it. Studying them would be interesting and perhaps yield something useful.
Trey
I just finished reading Freakanomics the other day, which takes a look at a lot of different phenomenon and at the incentives that affect said phenomenon.
I have no idea how one might go about analyzing this "withdrawal" of men from younger children, but I would be fascinated to see some number crunching on it.
I would note that the only young children I (provide) care for and spend time with (I am a man) are my nieces and nephews. When other children are a factor I become much more cautious for most of the reasons pointed out.
B.E.S.
TO: Professor Putnam
RE: Really???!?!?!?
"Men, he [Professor Putnam] argues, are "fundamentally more selfish."
Yeah????!?!
I guess we witnessed their sense of 'selfishness' all through World Wars I and II.
Especially at places like Tarawa, Iwo Jima and, not to be left out, Normandy; where men selfishly gave up their lives at a rate of 500 per minute in order for you to be able to say such.
Without such 'selfishness', you'd be teaching in German, today, buckie.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Male: A member of the unconsidered, or negligible sex. -- Ambrose Bierce]
This 'professor' proves the axiom to be true.
P.S. Where does this 'professor' [of BS] 'preach', anyway?
Trey,
What a good idea. A research study looking at the men who betray their sex and the reasons behind their "self-hatred." Just as an aside, I don't think it is self-hatred, it is to get "perks"--women in bed, good press etc., grants--most of these men don't believe a word of what they say-- would make a good dissertation etc. but I doubt it would be allowed and who would fund such non-PC research for a grant?
Quite an across-the-board stereotype (men are more selfish). Take a look at which way earned money is flowing in society in general.
And as if Paris Hilton is a completely selfless, giving person (for example).
"I don't think it is self-hatred, it is to get "perks"--women in bed ..."
----------
I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, I'm not sure it's a "perk". Picture the quality of woman who would sleep with these self-hating weenies.
I used to try to act like a feminist man to try to get Andrea Dworkin in bed, but it didn't work.
Putnam is a girlie man.
Putnam is big on differences between men and women, so why isn't he listing negative things about women, even stereotypes about women, like he's doing with men.
Somehow, I don't think that would go over as well.
anonymous:
"I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, I'm not sure it's a "perk". Picture the quality of woman who would sleep with these self-hating weenies."
Hey, sex is sex--and if you're on to the next one, what does it matter?
"And as if Paris Hilton is a completely selfless, giving person"
(In Austin Powers voice) Paris Hilton is a man, baby!
HAH! Dons, you made me laugh till it hurt!
Trey
Having been a caseworker with Big Brothers/Big Sisters, I can testify that recruiting volunteers for BB/BS is very difficult. And then there's the complications mentioned.
One not mentioned is the threat of lawsuits. I had a newly placed Big Brother call me and request to be placed with another boy. When he picked up the boy he had been placed with the mother made several references to all the people she had sued to get a few bucks here and there. (All were small settlements for falling on porches of rented houses and such.)
Of course, she wasn't selfish. Calling men fundamentally selfish is one of the most asinine statements I've ever heard. In most situations women expect and get more than men, weddings, Mother's Day v. Father's Day (Hallmark makes a Father's Day card for single mothers), who picks out the furniture for the house, etc.
Who made up the overwhelming majority of those who died on the Titanic and in every other sinking ship or burning furniture store? We need to appreciate our selfish men much more.
My boyfriend in the early 90s volunteered briefly in an urban preschool. He dropped out because he felt he was viewed with suspicion by parents and others. It was really unfortunate because he was freakin' great with kids and they seemed to love him.
The concept of "selfishness" as used in the public discourse is unfortunate in general, I think. It tends to be used as a club for people to get others to do what THEY think is best. This is a classic example. Another classic example is the frequent labelling of career women as "selfish" even though our careers contribute to our society and to our families' income as much as men's careers do.
(Dadvocate, it's cute that you think that getting lots of mother's day cards and being the center of attention at a wedding is such a huge societal advantage. They aren't.)
-- Margaret
**
Here's a story about a new campaign to call 911 on any man seen with a child:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/06/21/if-you-see-a-father-holding-his-childs-hand-call-the-cops/
I have grown children now, but I can tell you as an adult male, that for the last 10 years I have completely stopped any and all interaction with children. I haven't even so much as made eye contact with anyone under 16 or 18 in all these years and never will again until the day I die. I completely avoid any potential situation that will involve children. I would never consider dating any woman with children ever again. It simply is far too dangerous- if you discipline or anger a child they will make false allegations against you in a heartbeat (or a mother will do it out of petty revenge) thanks to all the feminist coaching in our public schools and the general demonization of men in society by women, the media and the court system. Well, it's come back to bite women and society and they don't like it. Too bad- you get what you give, now live with it and shut up.
To call me 'selfish' is hysterical! It's call 'survival.' The legal system, women and children are extremely dangerous threats to men today. Take my advice, men: Grow up and face it- family, marriage & children it's over.. any hope of being a father is DEAD- it's done- women and the goverment killed it. Protect yourself, because no one else gives a crap about you- PERIOD.
BBBS- that's funny- Big Brother BS-I couldn't agree more. The whole Big Brother organization anymore does nothing but help to facilitate selfish, slutty 'single' (by choice) mothers who have simply kicked out the fathers on false DV charges or just general no-fault divorce because they want to screw around, but now have the AUDACITY to expect a hard-working man to devote HIS TIME to be a surrogate father to her bastard children!
Any man who would fall for this is an idiot.
I certainly agree that there needs to be more male role models, but I do not think using seduction or accusations of selfishness are going to entice men to help children. If anything, the constant judgment of their character will just cause the men to stay away.
What organizations like Big Brother can do to rectify this is address the widely accepted notion that males interested in children are inherent threats to children. The overwhelming majority of volunteers do not abuse children. One can protect children and monitor the behavior of both male and female volunteers without the over-scrutiny we see. Simple marketing strategies focusing on the good males can bring into a child's life could do more to persuade men that it is both acceptable for them to like children and want to support them and that it is safe for those men to be around children.
I am not sure if anything like that will happen, but until it does it is wiser for men not to engage in anything involving children.
TO: All
RE: The Solution....
...to this problem rests with women.
We cannot compel them to be 'good', that can only come from their heart.
We, as men, can only seek out 'good' women. The challenge, on our part, is to be 'good' ourselves.
And therein lies the proverbial rub. What IS 'good'? Who defines it? What does it behave like?
The best answers to those questions, in my considered opinion, comes from a VERY old Book; which I read on a daily basis.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.]
P.S. Personally, I think that the current state of the world is 'too safe' and some women have got the idea that they can do without men.
On the other hand, I think the current state of affairs is not going to last that long.....
I really object to Rhoads and Weiss' use of the stigmatizing word "selfish". Men are more selfish than women? Tell that to all the men who died in combat protecting American society, in large part become American women demanded to be protected.
There is a large body of theory and research in evolutionary psychology and behavioral economics concerning greed, altruism, social manipulation (including managing one's social reputation to appear pro-social while actually being vicious, something that political liberals do constantly) and the use of social allies in achieving selfish aims.
I suspect that Rhoads has read much of it. I also suspect that Weiss has not and probably will not.
Hey Anon, are you really that bitter and angry, or are you just someone posting inflamed, angry, accusatory posts thinking that you can get someone to agree with that crap because we all "obviously" hate women here?
I needs to know. I have wondered about this type of post for months. And I have never seen that kind of post get an amen, much less a right on. So which is it?
Trey
Back in the mid-80's I thought I might volunteer for Big Brothers in Boston (more alliterative than I realized at the time). I deluded myself thinking I might be a good candidate, given that I had a PhD, worked in a private think-tank, and taught at Northeastern University.
The interview process was long, which didn't bother me. I knew what was at stake. My interviewer was a tyro, and I was her first interviewee. She asked many searching questions about my life, and I answered candidly.
I was a 36-year old bachelor at the time, dating a woman I had been dating for some years. Since then, I got married at 40 and have been happily married for 17 years. BUT - and this is a big but - during my last two years of my PhD program, I suspected my housemate, Ray, of some prior homosexual experience based on comments he had made about his life prior to grad school. However, Ray was involved with a very nice woman the entire time I actually knew him, as I was during our time as housemates.
My interviewer's supervisor, who never met me, rejected my application. According to my interviewer, her supervisor (apparently a woman and clinical psychologist) suspected I had latent homosexual tendencies and felt I would be a risk to a male child.
Two things:
(1) I agree with the decision, insofar as I think one must be very conservative during the selection process for Big Brothers/Sisters. There is much at stake, and the cost of an error could be very high.
(2) It would have been nice if the supervisor had bothered to speak to me herself.
Regarding BB-BS volunteering. While I was in college I volunteered as a BS. It was rewarding and educational experience and the organization is wonderful and top-quality. But then again, when I was in college I had nothing to lose. Would I, as a woman, volunteer now? Heck no! I have too much to lose in a frivolous law-suit. But I would look less at men as being selfish but moreso as women might get something emotionally and socially for volunteering for a child-related organization. It is expected of women in American society to be seen as a caregiver and nurturer, and I think some women feel as it might make them look good to their employers, peers, dates and friends for being a role model to poor children. As a side note, having lived among poor children for a number of years, I think many of the
"economically disadvantaged" kids grow up better adjusted and with a better attitude than many children in the "privileged" class. If men are concerned about being labeled as a pervert while volunteering, I have the same concerns. I have the same attitude about not interacting with any child that is not a blood relation. Better safe than sorry, it might take a village to raise a child but you are going to have to go looking for the village where I don't reside.
At every church I've attended for about 10 years, insurance requirements have made it a policy that men not work in the nursery, even with other adults present. Our current church allows my husband to volunteer in the nursery because that rule wasn't in place when we started attending, but in future men will not be allowed. If anyone were to make an accusation, founded or not, you can expect that policy to be tightened and to spread to older age groups beyond the under-two-year-old group to which it currently applies. And keep in mind, in our nurseries the volunteers don't even change diapers and are never left alone with the children. But men are still too risky, apparently. . .
Margaret - You may disregard any and all of my comments in the future. God forbid, that I would appear cute to you in any way. I'm sure you enjoy using that word as an insult to men in retribution for all the wrongs women over the centuries have suffered at the hands of men. Be careful or I'll call you a "lady" or "gal." It is interesting how you've appointed yourself the judge of righteousness.
When was the last time you actually opened you mind enough to actually perceive something so as not to be colored by your preconceived notions?
It's not about being the center of attention on the wedding day. Virtually entire process is about what the bride wants.
On Father's Day more collect calls (to Dad) are made than any other day of the year. And, now mother's get cards in Father's Day. Try turning that around and see what happens.
I never said either was a social advantage, just a sign how women are treated more preferentially than men.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=455616&in_page_id=1770
But in these politically-correct times, it seems, gentle flattery has become something of a lost art.
Not only are men failing to compliment female friends and colleagues for fear of causing offence - but women are highly likely to suspect the motives of the individual offering the admiring comment.
Two-thirds feel uncomfortable if someone other than a partner offers praise, and a similar number mistrust the motives of the man behind the praise.
Unfortunately for women, this all presents something of a conundrum because, according to research, nine out of ten claim they love to be complimented.
then theres the case of Fitzroy Barnaby on the sex offenders register for Though Barnaby was acquitted of attempted kidnapping and child abduction charges stemming from the November 2002 incident, he was convicted of unlawful restraint of a minor -- which is a sex offense.
then theres a story in the UK, where a man saw a young child walking alone down the street and didnt stop and help because he thought he was going to be called a pedophile, the child later on drowned.
theres a law being told in the UK, that EVERYONE, who works with any child at any time, has to be checked with the police.
male teachers rare now..
Dadvocate,
God forbid, that I would appear cute to you in any way. I'm sure you enjoy using that word as an insult to men in retribution for all the wrongs women over the centuries have suffered at the hands of men.
Now who has preconceived notions?
You are correct, however, that we may be more in agreement than I realized from your wording. Part of my point is that preferential treatment does NOT translate into a social advantage. I am glad that you see that distinction.*
*The wedding thing still makes me laugh.
-- Margaret (the feminist)
Tmink/Trey
I am puzzled your comment at 2:56 p.m. because it's not clear to whom it is directed. Every single anonymous comment on this thread (including mine!) was supportive of Dr. Helen's post!
But, to answer your question as a newbie to this thread, I am not commenting here to get an "Amen!" or "Right on!" but to explore the issues raised and to engage in a substantive give-and-take with people who have different views than mine.
-- Margaret (the feminist)
TO: All
RE: Why She's Here
"I am not commenting here to get an "Amen!" or "Right on!" but to explore the issues raised and to engage in a substantive give-and-take with people who have different views than mine." -- Margaret [the feminist]
I needed a chuckle, and that bit of nonsense provided it; albeit a sardonic one.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Laugh, and the world ignores you. Crying doesn't help either.]
I commented in another thread that I was a card-carrying girl scout (had to be) when my wife and I were co-leaders for my daughter's Brownie troop. We all had such great fun! Not sure I'd do that now, though, for the risks mentioned are very real.
I also made reference to the young fems I have tutored in math. Those sessions have always been either in public or with the fem's mother present. Even the public sessions have almost always been with my wife or the fem's grandmother just a few feet away and in sight. I specified this arrangement both to protect myself and also to help relax the student, especially for the first vital sessions where a teacher-student rapport must begin. Eventually, the young fems have wanted their mother/grandmothers to be inside a coffee shop where they can see us at a table (still in public) but with a pane of glass separation so that they can concentrate better. For some reason, stranger passer-bys do not disrupt concentration but innocent sounds (like coughs) from a mother do disrupt. This is especially true for cell phone conversations - strangers' dialogues they can tune out, but not a mother's.
I have not volunteered at a BBBS program, but I can say that as an adult male, I had difficulty in gaining acceptance when inquiring about being a volunteer. A few years ago, when my first son was old enough, I thought it would be a good experience for him if we volunteered at a local nursing home. I had done this in college and met some wonderful folks. I tried three local homes for the elderly, and got blank stares, passed-on to uninterested supervisors, and unreturned phone calls.
We finally threw in the towel and a year later my wife gave birth to twins--leaving us temporarily with no time for volunteering anyway. I understand how there would be hesitation regarding a male volunteer in places that house the elderly, but someone who is bringing a young person to visit with their residents, is willing to provide references and go through background checks should at least deserve a return phone call.
It isn't just men who are avoiding other peoples children for self-preservation. My aunt stopped working in the church nursery for similar fears. She had a bad habit of making children mind. A habit that served her well in raising four children and nine grandchildren, not to mention over 30 years as a pediatric nurse. A habit many of the parents and grandparents of the kids in the nursery had experienced firsthand over their childhoods.
The risks of being around other people's children have been made so disproportionate by the very people who now lament the lack of volunteers. Yet they are unable to see that it is their actions that cause rational individuals to avoid those risks.
Margaret - Maybe I've given you some insight into why many men hate weddings. It's the process not the getting married.
During my daily bicycle ride, I was thinking about this. Nothing new, really. But I did come up with the point of view that one could take the tact that teaching boys to open doors for girls and the other preferential treatment stuff (courtesies) does give females a social advantage.
Teaching boys this prepares them to sacrifice their life in order to save that of a female. In the event of life threatening events, ship sinking, etc., it's women and children first, men only after everyone else is saved. This is still a common theme in movies and TV shows. The male who tries to save himself first is the worst of cowards.
To me, this argument sounds like some of the "logic" I hear from feminists except with the genders reversed.
I have no problem with all this except that it's time for the radical feminists to give the guys a break. Let boys be boys and men be men. We're really not that bad.
Hey Margaret, I appreciate your posts as they are thoughful and thought provoking. I was referring to the 12:40 anon. If you read that post, I bet mine will make sense.
I am wondering if it is some dead fish, fake misognynistic troll. It was this part: "The whole Big Brother organization anymore does nothing but help to facilitate selfish, slutty 'single' (by choice) mothers who have simply kicked out the fathers on false DV charges or just general no-fault divorce because they want to screw around, but now have the AUDACITY to expect a hard-working man to devote HIS TIME to be a surrogate father to her bastard children!
Any man who would fall for this is an idiot."
Perhaps this poster is just bitter and borderline delusional, or maybe it is a ruse. What do you think Margaret?
And, Anon posting is not without hazards. It is difficult to follow the points and discussions, you never know when someone is speaking about you, and some people will not read them as a matter of course.
I do not consider you an Anon because you sign a name. Thanks for that.
Trey
Sorry, Trey, I misunderstood. The 12:40 anon comment is extremely nasty. (And thank you for your kind words.)
And Dadvocate, I hear you on the wedding process, although as a bride, it seemed like a pain in the butt to me too. I caved and had the big wedding due to social pressure from my in-laws -- and the pressure to produce the perfect occasion seemed to fall more heavily on me than on him. (Not that I'm complaining. My husband pulled his weight with the wedding planning. And, in retrospect 10 years later, both of us look back on the occasion fondly and are glad we did it.)
-Feminist Margaret
When I was growing up (I'm now 51), my Father spent many years as the leader of the community Cub Scout Pack. He and my Mother also volunteered time to work with kids in our schools, church, and other community groups. Other men volunteered as Scoutmasters, Baseball/Football/Basketball coaches, Camp counselors, Swim instructors, endless other activities. Maybe we were naive, but pedophilia never seemed to be an issue. Or perhaps the fact that these men, mostly Korean War Vets, would have dealt with the predators swiftly and appropriately, was an effective enough deterrent.
Today, any man wanting/willing to be involved with youth activities is automatically suspect. And a man must be on his guard to never be alone with someone else's child, even for a moment. Rather than take an interest in the communities youth, it is better to cultivate a reputation as man with an intense dislike of youth.
Paranoid? Not quite. A cousin of mine was recently prosecuted for sexual abuse of a neighbor's toddler, even though the state could not produce any physical evidence of abuse and could not show that he had ever even been alone with the child. (The criminal jury acquitted, but when a civil suite was filed, his homeowner's wouldn't even defend. They just threw in the policy.)
That's Justice in the 21st Century. Can't make the case that we're better off, though.
richard blaine-
Or perhaps the fact that these men, mostly Korean War Vets, would have dealt with the predators swiftly and appropriately, was an effective enough deterrent.
Don't be naive, there were pedophiles back then. Kids were indoctrinated back then that adults were to be obeyed no matter what, so it wasn't reported or prosecuted as often.
Paranoid? Not quite. A cousin of mine was recently prosecuted for sexual abuse of a neighbor's toddler, even though the state could not produce any physical evidence of abuse and could not show that he had ever even been alone with the child. (The criminal jury acquitted, but when a civil suite was filed, his homeowner's wouldn't even defend. They just threw in the policy.)
Now let's see here. What if the god-like Korean War Vets that you have such a fawning admiration for had "dealt with" your "predator" cousin? Being a veteran doesn't mean you're allowed to be a criminal. The hypocrisy there is disgusting - your cousin should have his rights honored, but no one else, right?
Richard,
I have prosecuted a number of sexual assault cases involving children (although only one toddler and in that case the abuser confessed). There is rarely any "physical evidence of abuse" because most such cases involve fondling, or maybe some digital penetration, as opposed to intercourse or rougher penetration. However, it is important to at least be able to establish that the defendant had an opportunity to abuse. Also the prosecutor should try to corroborate as much of the child's testimony as possible -- even if it relates to innocuous aspects of his or her story.
Assuming it is established that the child is competent to testify (which may tough in the case of a toddler), the child's testimony in and of itself is considered sufficient to establish the elements of the offense if the jury believes the testimony beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed, eyewitness testimony (by a victim or anyone else) is legally sufficient to convict someone of any type of crime. The trouble in sexual assault cases is that there is often no physical evidence, and the lack of physical evidence doesn't necessarily mean the crime didn't occur (as opposed to certain kinds of felony assault, where one needs to have some evidence of an injury).
I am a little confused about your cousin's homeowner's policy. Are you saying that the insurance company settled the case, or are you saying they wouldn't provide coverage at all? Most homeowner's policies don't provide coverage for "intentional acts," so if you get sued for sexual assault, you are usually on your own.
-- Margaret (the feminist)
The 12:40 anonymous comment is apparently offensive because of its brutal accuracy. We have an enormous criminal underclass in this country, created and fueled by women who reproduce indiscriminately and who then expect "someone else" to bear the responsibility for their spawn. The few men who volunteered for the Big Brother program -- no doubt with the best of intentions -- found themselves branded as pederasts when it became expedient for their beneficiaries to do so.
And as to the question of "selfishness:" That's the logic of the five-year-old. You have something I want (but have no entitlement to), you won't give it to me, therefore you are "selfish." No offense to Dr. Helen, but that mindset seems especially pervasive in modern academia. So it's no surprise that some degreed half-wits can make a career of opining on the subject.
So back to the issue in the post-- how do we as individuals and as a society balance the need to protect children from abuse with the need to protect the innocent from unjust prosecution and the need to protect caretakers of our children from unjust suspicion?
1) You may want to find out the policies of your local prosecutor's office. One DA's office where I worked (very briefly) automatically prosecuted all allegations of sexual assault regardless of merit. That's a bad policy because it removes one protection for the accused (i.e. scrutiny of all cases by the prosecutor's office) and it undermines confidence in the justice system when bad cases are prosecuted.
You want to demand that your local prosecutor is exercising independent judgment -- that he or she is not afraid to tell a family that the case won't be prosecuted because the evidence doesn't add up to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a hard conversation to have with someone who feels they are the victim of a crime, but prosecutors need to step up to the plate rather than just saying, "It's up to the jury."
2) We should promote role models of men who are good with children. My favorite was and is Mister Rogers, whom I absolutely adored when I was a toddler. He may seem a bit "smarmy" to adult eyes, but little kids love him and he was unquestionably devoted to the wellbeing of young children.
Is there any good news? Yes:
1) Law enforcement have learned from some of the travesties of the '80s. At police/prosecutor training programs in my locale, the McMartin preschool case is reviewed in depth. (Interestingly, a lot of these bogus preschool prosecutions have involved women defendants.)
2) The public is slowly coming to understand that women can be offenders as well (although not at the same frequency as men).
-- Feminist Margaret
Margaret-f -- Theft. You can accuse me of taking something all you want, but without proof, it's moot.
The trouble with cases involving children is that they can be swayed to report what one party wants. The smaller the child, the less likely they will override this with a sense of truth and justice.
2) Mister Rogers --
No, we need to remove the false concept that there are "preferred" male models. Kids like Hulk Hogan too, you know.
Slamdunk --
I understand how there would be hesitation regarding a male volunteer in places that house the elderly,
Why? Female volunteers are more likely to abuse the elderly.
stats
From article:
"The level of abusive behavior was positively associated with gender, education level, and caregiver’s burden and negatively correlated with age (P < .01–.05), suggesting that female caregivers, caregivers with higher levels of education, and caregivers with high burdens demonstrated more severe psychologically abusive behavior."
Margaret and Richard -
Insurance companies very rarely contest suits, and not just when it is child abuse.
For example, maybe 20 years ago, a young next-door girl (age about 5) wandered out of her yard and (uninvited and untended by her parents) into our backyard. My youngest child (age aut 8) was playing in our yard with our golden retriever on a leash. The leash got tangled in the girl's legs and gave her a rope deep burn.
My insurance company setled for multiple tens of thousands of dollars without a second thought.
I'm not feeling terribly optimistic at the moment generally speaking but with regards to this issue I think there have been some improvements in the last 18 months or so.
One of my best friends from college, whose about my age, is married, has two young girls & was sufficiently freaked by the public school system in the Bay Area that she pulled her kids told me some months ago that a lot of public schools in Northern California, which is not exactly known for being terribly friendly to masculine men (except when they elect governers--go figure), are actively seeking male elementary & high school teachers.
And my old college sponsor, now retired in Florida & the first person to confirm my nagging suspicion that there was increasing hostility towards men in society was telling me not long before that there's a big demand for male English teachers in Florida & that even pay them like human beings.
I'm trapped in a pretty male-hostile region--more accurately, a pretty male hostile region if you're not a successful, wealthy, married professional with a perfect WASP pedigree. Then you're acceptable. Also, don't be a woman over 25 if weighs more then 110 pounds, especially if you're single & have a kid. Or be black and poor. Not a nice place.
Anyway, that said, I know a few nurses who've told me they love the fact that more men are going into nursing--partly, I think, it's because most male nurses could pass for middle linebackers & if a patient needs to be gently restrained it helps if you've got someone on call whose 6'1" & 210 pounds to help with the restraining.
Even the local feminist domestic violence organization is pretty open-minded. Oddly, they seem to have a blind spot where techniques favored by violent women are concerned but they readily acknowledge that resources for men are totally inadequate, hate the social service people as much as I do (something to bond over) & have actively started recruiting men.
I'm sort of curious as to motivations, but Donna Byrnes, the director once told me that most of their opinions are formed based on what they see...and not in a challenging way. More like an invitation to present different perspectives.
And if you follow the Washington Post, Dana Priest & Anne Hull have been doing some dynamite work on veterans (pretty much all men) who've been chucked aside by the Powers That Be after they've been physically & emotionally maimed.
Come to think of it, I think this is the first major newspaper series I've ever seen that presents adult men who've been victimized in a positive light without diminishing them as men or politicizing their race or sex or party affiliation.
That's something, anyway.
I agree with paul harvey. Anon 12.40 has a perfectly good point, even though the language is angry and aggressive.
The point is of course to highlight the contradiction of women having children without fathers, then turning around later in life and expecting another older male to "father" their child in a desperate attempt to plug the gap that should never have been there in the first place. How can this make sense especially when any damage due to fatherlessness has by now become deep-rooted and harder to eradicate? Would not the more sensible and logical course be to take more care to ensure your child had a real and proper father in the first place? Especially when the child is supposed to be the most important person here all along?
If you don't make a mess to begin with, you won't have to clear it up (or prevail upon others to do it for you) later when it has become far worse. Then there should be no need for BBBS with all its problems (and excuses for yet more male bashing) or anything else.
What is so terrible with such a suggestion?
Olgonicella,
It doesn't have to be Mr. Rogers. Hulk Hogan types are fine too. I think the Mr. Rogers types are more likely to be viewed with suspicion because they are acting in a more stereotypically "feminine" way.
Theft. You can accuse me of taking something all you want, but without proof, it's moot.
Actually, eyewitness testimony is "evidence" or "proof" in a court of law.
But just as I said, with some crimes, the LACK of corroborating evidence is more problematic in certain types of cases than others. So if I am a child who accuses you of fondling me, there isn't going to be any physical evidence of fondling. But if I accuse you of breaking my nose, there has to be physical/medical evidence that my nose got broken or my claim is going to be extremely suspect.
With theft, my testimony alone may be enough to convict you, assuming I witnessed (or claimed to witness) the theft. Even if the stolen item is not found in your possession, that may be because it's money and therefore not readily identifiable OR perhaps because you disposed of the stolen item. In the alternative, you may claim that I GAVE you the stolen item, in which case the trial will devolve into a "she said/he said," just like a rape case might.
Actually, the testimony of the defendant is evidence too. If the defendant says "No, I didn't steal it", real evidence would be required.
Otherwise, you could simply have someone locked up by claiming they stole something. Your last sentence supports my position.
oligoncella--
Well thought out, btw.
Nothing wrong with Hulk Hogan, though. I must protest. Met the guy once. Pretty mellow. Must have been post 'roids. ;)
John Clarke asks "What is so terrible with such a suggestion?"
Two things I think. First, your post leaves no room for the child being abandoned by their father. It suggests a world where only women are to blame for their fatherless children. Do you really believe that, or do you believe as I, that women are likely around 50% to blame for the problem? If it is an even distribution of blame, then the angry post is actually blaming and ducking responsibility at the same time.
Secondly, the children are innocent. You do not participate in big brothers for the moms, but for the children. Refusing to do so because of anger at the mothers who are perhaps innocent, perhaps totally to blame for the problem, damages the children, who are blameless.
And you and I through our taxes will pay for them for their rest of their lives if they grow into feral adults.
That is what is wrong with both posts. You write like a sensible person, I would like to hear your thoughts on this critique.
Trey
Oligonicella,
You are absolutely right that the defendant's testimony is also evidence, just as much the victims or alleged victims' testimony.
However, the defendant's testimony doesn't automatically cancel out to the victim's testimony or create reasonable doubt. It's up to the jury to decide whom to believe. Juries are actually instructed by the judge that they are free to either accept or reject a party's testimony in whole or in part. Thus, a jury may simply decide not to credit the defendant's testimony if it doesn't seem believable.
Juries are given factors by which they can judge the credibility of witnesses -- i.e. does the party's testimony seem reasonable or probable, does the party seem to be a person worthy of belief, is there corroborating evidence of the party's testimony, is the party's testimony consistent with his or her prior statements etc. etc.) And yes corroborating evidence or the lack thereof IS a factor, but it's not the only factor and corroborating evidence is not legally required.
Therefore, even if the defendant testifies, a jury may convict a defendant on the victim's word alone in all sorts of cases, including theft and sexual assault. Obviously, a jury is much more likely to convict if there is corroborating evidence but there is no rule that says they has to has corroborating evidence. There are plenty of convictions in theft cases, as well as rapes and other types of cases, based on the victim's testimony alone.
(This was my line of work for many years, so I have seen how these things play out in the courtroom.)
I'm a photographer, among other things, and I confess I'm paranoid about taking pictures of children - no matter how beautiful or engaging or cute they are. I wouldn't even ask their parents for permission. Too many risks.
Helen, Trey,
Regarding the reasons men self out their sex...
I speak as someone with a degree from a small liberal arts school that grew increasingly gynocratic (in a terroristic way) during my tenure as a student, I can give you three reasons why men sell out:
1) Power through women over men AND women through fear (men) & covert manipulation (women).
2) More sex.
3) An easy PhD, presumably extending the period during which they will get more sex & because Science is Hard!
(Quoth Talking Barbie...)
One way to get a really good understanding of how the criminal justice system works in your locale is to get a copy of the model criminal jury instructions for your state. This will set forth what the jury is told about how to make a decision in a criminal case, and how to weigh the evidence.
Oh, and I should note that I cannot speak for the way this stuff outside the U.S., which may be a completely different story.
Oligonicella,
Just to address your last point:
Otherwise, you could simply have someone locked up by claiming they stole something. Your last sentence supports my position.
To sum up my prior comments on this issue: Yes, you CAN get someone locked up by claiming they stole something (or committed some other crime against you)!
However, you'd have to be very determined and cold-blooded because you would have to lie repeatedly and in detail by telling your story to the police, to the prosecutor and under oath in a public courtroom under cross-examination. You need to know that inconsistencies and improbabilities in your story will be looked at closely as well as any motives you may have to lie.
Oligonicella said... "Why? Female volunteers are more likely to abuse the elderly."
Thanks for the study link, and I had two counterpoints. The study is of caregivers and is not restricted to volunteers. Reading the article summary, it is not clear how caregivers is defined, and the full article is $30. Without assigning proportions to the population in question (that the vast majority of caregivers and volunteers in elder care facilities are female), stating that more women are involved in elder abuse is of limited value--the equivalent of saying that in the male-dominant profession of law enforcement, male police officers make more arrests than female officers.
Second, I would still argue, as described by many posters, that there is a perception of male volunteers as being a higher risk than female volunteers.
Margaret said:
"So back to the issue in the post-- how do we as individuals and as a society balance the need to protect children from abuse with the need to protect the innocent from unjust prosecution and the need to protect caretakers of our children from unjust suspicion?"
I believe you miss the point. The balance has been achieved. Men do not volunteer to be involved with children. Now BB&BS and others are hoping to bully men to imperil their reputation, liberty and livelihood "for the children." From the comments here and to the post on DailyPundit, many men would like to volunteer but not only is the risk of accusation there, the groups wanting volunteers start out with the preconceived notion that you are an offender. Your discussion of the legal proof doesn't alter that the best way to avoid the risk is to avoid any appearance of opportunity. It is unfortunate that the children will not have a direct male role model but they can always look up to athletes and rock stars.
Let us not forget that male activities, such as hunting, fishing, canoeing, woodworking, building fires, hammering nails, sawing wood and cooking meat on a grill, are generally not acceptable to a lot of mothers and the social programs looking for volunteers. At least not anymore.
The horror of her poor baby coming in smelling of smoke and covered in soot from poking at a campfire. Or God forbid, a scrap from running or jumping.
Well, here is a news item on a report in Australia that found most child abusers are women. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=77464
True men are the biggest sex abusers but women get high marks in neglect, physical and verbal abuse. Let's see which abuse is more likely?
So if I am a child who accuses you of fondling me, there isn't going to be any physical evidence of fondling. But if I accuse you of breaking my nose, there has to be physical/medical evidence that my nose got broken or my claim is going to be extremely suspect.
Wasn't That the whole problem with the way molestation crimes are prosecuted, in particular, the McMartin case?
Get the child to accuse and the accused is then having to prove his innocence, rather than the DA having to prove the crime.
Why should the evidence bar be lower with children? Emotionally, I can see it, but not as a matter of law.
Jkb,
Fair enough. I understand that the point of the post had to do with people trying to get men to act in a particular way by accusing men of "selfishness" (and I did address that in my original response to the post). That's not cool.
But it does seem unfortunate, as you noted, that many men (like my ex-boyfriend whom I mentioned at 11:51 a.m.) are holding back from volunteering with kids. The kids lose out and so do the men who would otherwise volunteer (and so do women, since we as a sex will continue to be perceived as primarily responsible for young children). Is there any hope, I'm wondering?
My discussion of standards of proof was meant to address other comments on the thread. And I understand that the standards of proof don't necessarily make people feel any more comfy volunteering with kids.
Sgt. Ted,
The evidence bar isn't lower as a matter of law. But it's just hard to argue that the State failed to find "physical evidence of abuse," when there generally is no such thing as physical evidence in a case involving fondling (as opposed to a broken nose). Similarly, there is no physical evidence if I watch you take $20 out of my desk drawer.
One of the problems with McMartin though was that there SHOULD have been corroborating evidence of the children's claims and there wasn't. If I remember correctly, the children told stories of being molested in underground passageways which didn't exist. Also, there was something about a huge storeroom of peanutbutter, which was smeared over the children's bodies. There was no evidence of a storeroom of peanutbutter. (Another problem with McMartin was that the children were questioned in a leading and suggestive way.)
In your garden variety fondling case though, there generally aren't these wild claims. The child may describe being fondled in his bedroom and, while he may be able to describe his bedroom accurately, that neither proves nor disproves that the fondling actually occurred.
Sgt. Ted,
Upon reflection, my example of stealing $20 from my desk drawer may not be the best example because one may (but not necessarily!) leave fingerprints behind on the drawer.
I once prosecuted a woman for forgery because she was signing her ex-husband's name to checks. She said that he gave her permission to do so; he said he didn't. He said/she said. She was convicted on his testimony. Maybe it was a set-up but his story made more sense than hers (although he did have a motive to lie due to the acrimonious nature of their break-up).
margaret,
That was actually a particularly piquant example of the KIND of criminal behavior women seem more likely to inclines towards. Small scale stuff compared to sexual abuse but it's the sort of thing women are more likely to do to men.
Covert, or partner violence, or poison.
Sometimes I think the worst thing most modern men are guilty of is failing to defend on behalf of those who can't defend themselves is the habit of going blind and deaf to save their butts when a women is doing the damage...or another man.
With older men (early boomers, mostly) it's often a kind of failure to believe that kids can't deal with some girl (mothers included). With somewhat younger men, it's often fear, but that's a good enough excuse.
Correction: NOT a good enough excuse.
My experience with female offenders is anecdotal obviously, but I noticed that there seemed to be a greater concentration of female offenders, often middle-aged, for crimes like forgery and embezzlement. For crimes of violence, burglary, and DWI, the vast majority of offenders in cases that crossed my desk were young men. I would say that about 5 - 8 % of the DV cases involved female offenders. The most severe one was the woman who kicked her significant other in the face when he was leaning down to look under the car. Obviously, I can't speak to unreported cases.
-- Margaret
Slamdunk --
I should presume then that the "I understand how there would be hesitation regarding a male volunteer" really referred to the perception, not the facts? Otherwise, shouldn't it have been just volunteers? I know I'm nitpicking.
Margaret --
Since you have experience, what's the percentage of cases convicted with only witness say so on a simple theft? Ballpark guesstimate, I obviously don't expect researchable numbers.
Oligonicella,
Hmmmm . . . tough question. I would probably say 5 - 10% but that really is just a guesstimate. And I would readily admit that it is probably a much higher percentage in sexual assault and simple assault cases (simple assault being an assault with no injury, such as a slap or a shove). But in most cases of any sort (except murder!), the victim's testimony is THE crucial piece of evidence.
With child sexual asault cases though, I have observed that there is a clear distinction between compelling and less-than-compelling testimony from a child witness. A child witness who can't give any details and needs to be led shouldn't be propping up an entire criminal case (although those prosecutions do often go forward). But a child witness who convincingly describes adult sexual behavior can be extremely compelling even without much corroboration.
For example, I once had a ten year old girl who described in detail exactly how her girlfriend's stepfather masturbatd and ejaculated in front of her at a sleepover. Even with the increased sexual knowledge kids have these days, I doubt that a little girl that age could convincingly fabricate that description, not mention the scuzzy things he said to her and things he did to try her attention to his penis. Another compelling aspect of her case was the fact that she had every motive NOT to disclose what happened because she knew it would cause a rift between her and her best friend. There was also testimony from her own mother about her demeanor when she came home from the sleepover and her demeanor when she told what happened.
(In addition, although the jury didn't get to hear about this, I was aware of similar allegations about this guy from other children in other parts of the state.)
theres an assumption of guilt. now against men.
look at the press stories, about the madeline mccann story in portugal, a mr murat was tried and convicted in the press, and effectively ruined his life. he may be innocent, or guilty.
theres many stories about men being presumed guilty, there was an asian (indian) taxi driver here, a woman 17 clamined he raped her, he didnt they police proved she lied, she got 4 months in prison, but he lost his job, his home, and his family for that ONE womans claim.
look at the false rape claims, men are blamed even where there is no proof, the duke story springs to mind, and so on.. theres many more stories like that.
would you be a man in todays world, with all the risks.
(boris johnson a UK MP, was asked to move away from some kids when he was flying.. because he may have been a pedophile.. one tiny problem they were his children. )
i can get the articles if you want..
Another frequent example of the victim's testimony trumping all else are stranger violence cases (rapes and muggings for example). Eyewitness identification of strangers is notoriously unreliable, yet people can be and often are convicted on the basis of a victim's eyewitness identification. I had one case the cops wanted me to prosecute involving a man who caught a burglar in the act. The burglar fled. The cops showed him a photo line-up of known burglars in the area, and the man identified a particular suspect. My personal policy was not to prosecute based on eyewitness IDs without corroboration, but the law would have permitted me to do so, even though the victim might well have been mistaken.
(Sorry for all the war stories. I'll try to stop.)
margaret-
No - keep the stories up. It exposes how easily the criminal justice system in this country can be mistaken, corrupt, discriminatory, etc.
From Proximate: A good friend of mine experienced the downside of the Big Brother program firsthand. His wife used fake child molestation charges to get custody of their children. One of the accusations regarded a boy he helped through the Big Brother program.
My friend made the rather sensible decision, in light of how little evidence is required for such things to flee the country. He also was quite mindful of how those jailed for child molestations are sometimes killed by fellow prisoners even before the trial (this happened in O.C., CA recently).
In time he found that the authorities concluded that the charges were ungrounded. Still, he'll never see his children. He'll never form a relationship with a woman again.
I know second hand of two other men who were also falsely accused. One went to jail before his name was cleared. Many wives in bitter divorces routinely use false child molestation charges in order to secure total custody.
This is one of the causes of a precipitously low birthrate in western nations. Too bad it effects the Big Brother and similar programs, but the problem is much bigger than that.
Anonymous at 3:49 --
The criminal justice system is only as good as the people in it. Given the fallibility of police, witnesses, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges and juries, it is inevitably a highly flawed institution and miscarriages of justice occur.
In theory, the system makes sense. In practice, people screw up, or worse, are dishonest. And the layers of protection for the accused don't always work. People who have honestly been victimized by crime sometimes have their reputations unjustly ruined as well. It's an ugly business.
In time he found that the authorities concluded that the charges were ungrounded. Still, he'll never see his children. He'll never form a relationship with a woman again.
He shouldn't tolerate that. I know I wouldn't. I wouldn't stop until justice was collected - in full. (And legally / non-violently - I'm not advocating vigilante criminality.)
From Proximate: I agree, he shouldn't tolerate that, but he doesn't seem to have the energy for a fight. He's back in the states for now settling up on child support and setting up a mechanism for it to be paid in the future. He already lost his house, retirement account and all significant possessions.
It would cost him even more to wage a sustained legal battle; he doesn't have the means. Also, his wife has moved with the boyfriend she'd been seeing on the sly to a rural area where my friend could not possibly find employment for his profession. He couldn't move near enough to them to see the children regularly.
He's heard that his children have been told over the last three years that he's dead. He just counts himself lucky to be alive and free.
I would say that about 5 - 8 % of the DV cases involved female offenders. The most severe one was the woman who kicked her significant other in the face when he was leaning down to look under the car. Obviously, I can't speak to unreported cases.
Gelles, Sommers and Steinmetz have done the most exhaustive longitudinal studies on domestic violence. Their data indicates that women are just as likely to instigate domestic violence as men are. Women are more likely to be injured (because men are usually stronger), but they are also much more likely to use a weapon.
Anecdotally, a few years ago my brother and sister-in-law were having an argument. She hit him, ripped his shirt and then called the police. Though the only physical evidence indicated that she was the one guilty of assault, police policy is to arrest someone (for fear of being sued in case they don't, leading to more violence or murder), and typically they arre