• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

All men are potential child abusers

Status
Not open for further replies.

Michael Dorosh

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
It seems that all handguns are one break in away from being used in a crime, according to the Right Honourable Paul Martin.

Interesting.

I guess I am one plane flight away from being a child molestor, according to this:

The two ages of the male
08 December 2005 
By LINLEY BONIFACE

Many years ago, I spent three hours sitting on a plane next to a red-haired, green-eyed, freckle-faced, profoundly kickable boy who informed me shortly after takeoff that he was famous in New Zealand for appearing in a TV ad for meat. He then sang me the jingle.


I recognised it and continued to every one of the several thousand times he sang it between Wellington and Sydney. I was vegetarian for the next decade.

It was this boy I thought of when it was revealed Air New Zealand and Qantas had decided that only female passengers would be lumbered with the chore of sitting next to unaccompanied children. Men would be spared from having to share airspace with noxious whippersnappers like the meat boy.

If women have to put up with children travelling by themselves, surely it's only right that men be officially allocated their fair share of potentially annoying seatmates: passengers who attempt to show you their holiday photos or nervous fliers who spend the entire flight hyperventilating at the thought of being crushed by falling luggage.

It seems surprising that Air New Zealand and Qantas have no qualms about accusing half their client base of potential paedophilia. Men, it appears, are such filthy, immoral, perverted beasts that even those who appear relatively decent on the surface cannot be trusted to withstand the temptation of being seated next to young flesh.

Almost as surprising is the news that paedophiles, who we're always being told are exceptionally cunning and devious, would feel comfortable abusing children in an environment teeming with onlookers. In economy class, at least, you can hardly help yourself to a beer nut without elbowing a couple of other passengers in the face.

It's interesting that the two airlines haven't attempted to justify their extraordinary ruling by citing a long list of cases in which men were convicted of abusing unaccompanied children on flights –- indeed, they haven't bothered attempting to justify it at all.

AdvertisementAdvertisementAir New Zealand's part in all this is particularly baffling. In my experience, which consists of several wrist-slashingly awful long-haul flights with my children, Air New Zealand couldn't give a flying Fokker about the welfare of kids. Which leads me to think that this bizarre edict is a product not of the airline's concern for the safety of its youngest passengers, but its fear of lawsuits.

The two airlines aren't alone in regarding all men as predators and all children as prey. The biggest threats to the children of most of us are road accidents, drownings, burns and poisonings, yet child abusers cast an unnaturally large shadow.

Perhaps it's the newspaper photos that do it: all those well-groomed middle-aged pakeha men leaving the courtroom in their shirt and tie after being accused of raping their daughters. Drug dealers look like drug dealers; gang hit men look like gang hit men; child abusers look like the rest of us.

A friend in her late 50s counsels the adult survivors of child sexual abuse but says that when she was raising her own kids, she didn't even know there was such a thing as child sexual abuse. In the space of three decades, we've gone from assuming all adults are the natural protectors of children to accepting that some of them will betray that trust in the most unspeakable manner.

Most of my male friends are far better fathers than their own fathers were, yet few would feel comfortable left alone in a room with a child who was not their own. The obvious person to point this out would have been Children's Commissioner Cindy Kiro, who presumably has an interest in encouraging men to have good relationships with the children in their lives.

Instead, she has commended Air New Zealand and Qantas for putting thought into their policies and for endeavouring to keep children safe.

My son is four. I'd like to ask Dr Kiro at what age she'll stop regarding him as a potential victim of sexual abuse, and start regarding him as a potential abuser. Because, apparently, those are the only two options left for men.

Linley Boniface is a Wellington-based freelance writer.
 
And now, for a complete non sequiter, we offer the preceding clip...

WTF are you talking about?
 
Gunnar said:
And now, for a complete non sequiter, we offer the preceding clip...

WTF are you talking about?

The entire logic that seems to be slipping into the thought processes of lawmakers, big business, and those that "run" society.

The idea that we are guilty before having the chance to commit the crime.

You don't see the connection between Martin's assertion that handguns are one break-in away from being used in a crime, and the assertion that males are unsuitable to sit with unaccompanied child passengers?

Bad enough Martin tarred all gun owners as irresponsible by claiming their guns could be easily stolen - Qantas tars 50 percent of the population based on...

Well, what exactly?

Is this not of concern to anyone?
 
Michael Dorosh said:
The entire logic that seems to be slipping into the thought processes of lawmakers, big business, and those that "run" society.

The idea that we are guilty before having the chance to commit the crime.

Kinda like car insurance, eh?

"Male, 18 year-old, red car? That will be $10000 per year, please."

 
midgetcop said:
Kinda like car insurance, eh?

"Male, 18 year-old, red car? That will be $10000 per year, please."

It's the same logic.  But in some cases the logic is applicable.  They base their insurance premiums (well, in theory, I'm not an insider) on statistics, concerning age, type of car (wouldn't be suprised if colour was part of it too).  They have to base it on something, stats seem like an ok place to start. 

They charge too much across the board in Alberta, but that's another argument, right?

Valid point though - the logic itself isn't in question, but how it is implemented. 
 
But in the case of child abusers, are the statistics not correct? Are not the majority of child molestors male?

Then again, I'm not sure how abuse can realistically occur on a PLANE RIDE. Maybe this isn't so much about potential abuse as it is about children being more comfortable with women (in theory).

 
midgetcop said:
But in the case of child abusers, are the statistics not correct? Are not the majority of child molestors male?

Then again, I'm not sure how abuse can realistically occur on a PLANE RIDE. Maybe this isn't so much about potential abuse as it is about children being more comfortable with women (in theory).

Statistically, I am sure your statements are impeccable.  I personally would not be upset if I wasn't "allowed" to sit with an unaccompanied youngster.  And I think your point about comfort is apt, even if unprovable.  Just wonder if this "trend" can be extended beyond the two cases I've identified.
 
Along these lines:  I am the sole custodial parent of a now 14 year old daughter, and a 17 year old special needs son.  My daughter asked, on her 13th Birthday, for a monster sleepover, about 9 of the little darlings.  I reluctantly agreed, on the proviso that  all their parents be made aware that there was no mother in the house, and a signed permission slip stating that fact.  3 of the mothers refused to allow their daughters to attend, and I can't really fault them for that.  The flip side is that the other Mums all thought I was unnecessarily wonderful for making the effort.  No point, I guess, other than it bugs me to have to go to these lengths to protect myself.
 
midgetcop said:
But in the case of child abusers, are the statistics not correct? Are not the majority of child molestors male?

Then again, I'm not sure how abuse can realistically occur on a PLANE RIDE. Maybe this isn't so much about potential abuse as it is about children being more comfortable with women (in theory).

The majority of SEXUAL child abusers are male, but IIRC women compose the majority of non-sexual child abusers. Regardless, the first stat doesn't mean anything in relation to all men - pedophiles constitute a fraction of all men. One might as well indirectly accuse all women of being prostitutes (and treat them accordingly) because they compose the majority of that particular group.

Yet another example of how "screw the men in the a**" has now become policy, thanks to society (weak-kneed, self-hating men included) bending to every little preference of misandrist feminist sh*tes. 
 
"The majority of SEXUAL child abusers are male, but IIRC women compose the majority of non-sexual child abusers. Regardless, the first stat doesn't mean anything in relation to all men - pedophiles constitute a fraction of all men. One might as well indirectly accuse all women of being prostitutes (and treat them accordingly) because they compose the majority of that particular group.

Yet another example of how "screw the men in the a**" has now become policy, thanks to society (weak-kneed, self-hating men included) bending to every little preference of misandrist feminist sh*tes.:

- Too true.  In fact, one of the reasons we spent 2 Billion on Gun Control was that it was felt in some circles that it was a 'Women's Health Issue' (meanwhile, breast cancer fills the graveyards),    Because we have the 'equipment', we are all viewed as incipient rapists and spouse shooters. 

Of course, they all have the 'equipment' to be prostitutes...  .

Be interesting to see if ANY government we get after Monday will adjust some of the odious anti-father custodial and support laws.  Landslide Annie just laughs at the idea.

Men:  Second Class Citizens.

Tom
 
One might as well indirectly accuse all women of being prostitutes (and treat them accordingly) because they compose the majority of that particular group.

Very well said.


On the other hand I had the pleasure of playing seat hot potato on a flight because a mother and father with like 9 kids failed to get them seats close to each other so for 20 minutes they were trying to get people to move around.
At that point I would have called myself michael jackson if it ment getting away from those screaming kids.
 
Glorified Ape said:
The majority of SEXUAL child abusers are male, but IIRC women compose the majority of non-sexual child abusers. Regardless, the first stat doesn't mean anything in relation to all men - pedophiles constitute a fraction of all men. One might as well indirectly accuse all women of being prostitutes (and treat them accordingly) because they compose the majority of that particular group.

Good points.

Yet another example of how "screw the men in the a**" has now become policy, thanks to society (weak-kneed, self-hating men included) bending to every little preference of misandrist feminist sh*tes. 

What makes you think that it was necessarily "feminist sh*tes" that came up with this policy?
 
Interesting discussion on how 'Statistics' have actually been skewed to support a 'preventative measure'.  The unfortunate thing with this matter is the statistics that are being used justify it.  I personally know of only three child sex abusers, all of them are female.  One was the wife of a former colleague of mine, and her two friends.  All got jail sentences and Psych time.  

If we look at the statistics that are used on young male drivers, we see cause for them to have higher insurance rates.  Why?  Because statistics can show that male drivers have the most Traffic Violations, etc.  No statistics, however, are kept of the number of times a male cop has let a female driver off for an offence.  Thus statistics are skewed in the favour of women.  Males now face higher insurance costs.

Michael has brought up an interesting article to compare to the new gun policies being put forward by the Liberal Government.  Next question is where will all this nonsense stop?  Will we get into the knife debate (again) next?  Then we can outlaw baseball bats and hockey sticks.  Look at Todd Bertuzzi.  My good lord, he used a hockey stick to attack an opponent in a game.  Hockey sticks should be banned.

Tom has brought up a 'hidden agenda' point; "Women's Health Issues" which again take precedence over all male orientated matters.  Women are being brought to the top of the political agenda and men are being 'victimized' in the process.  There is little in the way of research for 'Male Cancer' problems.  Men are discriminated against, as in this article........and if you are a white male in Canada, almost every job application.  It would be interesting to actually ask the people making these decisions whether they are being made as PC measures, Feminist retaliatory action to the Male dominated society of the past, or some other reason.

Wow!  What a can of worms.  The pendulum has swung way to the left.  What will happen when is swings back?
 
TCBF said:
"The majority of SEXUAL child abusers are male, but IIRC women compose the majority of non-sexual child abusers. Regardless, the first stat doesn't mean anything in relation to all men - pedophiles constitute a fraction of all men. One might as well indirectly accuse all women of being prostitutes (and treat them accordingly) because they compose the majority of that particular group.

Yet another example of how "screw the men in the a**" has now become policy, thanks to society (weak-kneed, self-hating men included) bending to every little preference of misandrist feminist sh*tes.:

- Too true.  In fact, one of the reasons we spent 2 Billion on Gun Control was that it was felt in some circles that it was a 'Women's Health Issue' (meanwhile, breast cancer fills the graveyards),    Because we have the 'equipment', we are all viewed as incipient rapists and spouse shooters. 

Of course, they all have the 'equipment' to be prostitutes...  .

Be interesting to see if ANY government we get after Monday will adjust some of the odious anti-father custodial and support laws.  Landslide Annie just laughs at the idea.

Men:  Second Class Citizens.

Tom

Indeed - it's time we laid the smack down on the weaker sex (figuratively speaking, of course) and ensure ourselves a society in which we're still aloud to have testicles and act like it.

Ghost778 said:
Very well said.


On the other hand I had the pleasure of playing seat hot potato on a flight because a mother and father with like 9 kids failed to get them seats close to each other so for 20 minutes they were trying to get people to move around.
At that point I would have called myself michael jackson if it ment getting away from those screaming kids.

I love when poor planning by someone else causes me grief. It's like parents that sit there with a screaming crying child/baby in a restaurant - drag the thing to the bathroom and sort it out.

midgetcop said:
Good points.

What makes you think that it was necessarily "feminist sh*tes" that came up with this policy?

I'm sure it wasn't - it was probably some idiot lawyer but it's the "Wymyn's Movement" that has created a society where the only politically correct bigotry is sexism/hatred against men (misandry). Do you think a policy like this would have even made it past the mouth of the lawyer that thought it up if it was directed at women? I think not. Same as the endless commercials portraying husbands and men as inept morons, saved at the last minute by their bright, pragmatic wives. Or the ads/shows/movies portraying women kicking the crap out of/hitting men as something good or humorous. Yeah, real funny - until she runs across an egalitarian that'll knock her on her ass in response (but then he's in the wrong). This isn't about equality anymore, it's about advancing women's interests, and only their interests. If they can put a fist up the arse of every man in the process, all the better. ::)

George Wallace:

Tom has brought up a 'hidden agenda' point; "Women's Health Issues" which again take precedence over all male orientated matters.  Women are being brought to the top of the political agenda and men are being 'victimized' in the process.  There is little in the way of research for 'Male Cancer' problems.  Men are discriminated against, as in this article........and if you are a white male in Canada, almost every job application.  It would be interesting to actually ask the people making these decisions whether they are being made as PC measures, Feminist retaliatory action to the Male dominated society of the past, or some other reason.

Wow!  What a can of worms.  The pendulum has swung way to the left.  What will happen when is swings back?

Amen - that tendency of the left pains me to no end, even as a lefty. As for women's health, if prostate cancer got the same attention that breast cancer does, we'd be in a far better situation. As it is, we end up with a run/walk/ruck march/hike/wet t-shirt contest/eating contest/concert/etc every week for breast cancer and the occasional "get yourself checked" ad for prostate cancer. If the life expectancies for the sexes were reversed, there'd be campaign after campaign to get women's life expectancy up to where it is for men. As it is, no one minds us dying more and sooner because, after all, we have penises.
 
All men are potential child abusers
Yeah, and everyone with a valid driver's licence is a potential formula 1 driver.
Yet, only about 15 people worldwide actually drive them...
 
Ghost778 said:
On the other hand I had the pleasure of playing seat hot potato on a flight because a mother and father with like 9 kids failed to get them seats close to each other so for 20 minutes they were trying to get people to move around.
At that point I would have called myself michael jackson if it ment getting away from those screaming kids.

As someone who used to fly quite a lot for work up until a few years ago I often found myself in close proximiety to unsupervised rugrats (usually while mommy and/or daddy swilled their duty free and/or tried to join the mile high club). Telling then to go play outside for a while works. ;D

Interesting article Michael and another example of how PC (and spineless) we as a society have become to our detriment.

 
Its also interesting that society has evolved to the concept that its acceptable to use statistics when setting a bias in insurance rates, the above mentioned airline policy(not exactly based on stats), hiring practices of "visible minorities" to be politically correct, parental rights when dealing in child custody cases etc ect ect.

And yet racial profiling is still a term you cant say in public. If those that quote statistics want to look at the issue..........one could say that statistically a blonde haired blue eyed person boarding an airplane with a person (for instance) of Iraqi descent, is not as likely to be a terrorist.

Yes there are blonde haired blue eyed terrorists out there but arn't there also 18 year old males with good driving habits?
 
Danjanou said:
Interesting article Michael and another example of how PC (and spineless) we as a society have become to our detriment.

You have a point, but I think over the last 20 years we have seen a gradual feminization of our society. Our school system doesn't want to make any kid feel excluded, so kids who shouldn't be are in the regular stream; maybe it works but not in my experience. In sports everyone gets a medal because we don't want our kids to experience what it's like to actually lose. Girls weren't going to law school, medical school or engineering (e.g.), now some schools are overwhelmingly female. Begining with the Oprah generation, woman have been bombarded with the idea that if you're a man, you're bad. You can commit any crime and you don't have a reason, you have an excuse. Woman routinely sue men's clubs to become members but you don't see me suing Curves to get in there. I gotta stop or will enter rant mode.  :-X

potato
 
I'll throw a grenade out here.  After the age of 3, most killers of their children ARE men.  But from below that age perps are overwhelmingly the mothers.  Most cases of "Sudden Infant Deaths" (SID) are mothers actions ascribed to "Post partum depression".  This never makes its way to the legal system as MDs don't pursue it.  But I fully support the mothers right to choose to kill her unborn child... how PC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top