Need input from heterosexual, non-feminist men, who are not perverts or molesters

[ryobi]

I'm to busy with real problems to fight for any of that.

Men don't have any problems right? Just like the slaves working on the plantations didn't have any problems right?

 

[ryobi]

That is a fatalist attitude.

If we agree that society in general is more suspect of males in relation to sexual violence of any type. And, this is part of what you refer to as the male-hostile environment, I would like to think that we can proactively change the level of suspicion or prejudice which males face here. Part of doing this, I would argue is making sure that males are part of the education and learning of young children. It stands to reason that through interaction prejudices fall. If our children grow up distanced from males to whom our society is hostile, would not they to see men with hostility?

I kind of enjoy having to not be too nice when children are around while at the same time not being to mean because either being too nice or too mean to children is not socially acceptable as a man. It's just part of the, "male privilege," that comes with being a man

Just like part of male privilege is not being allowed to defend yourself on the internet or real life when you are attacked by a woman Male privilege is awsome!!!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I kind of enjoy having to not be too nice when children are around while at the same time not being to mean because either being too nice or too mean to children is not socially acceptable as a man. It's just part of the, "male privilege," that comes with being a man

Just like part of male privilege is not being allowed to defend yourself on the internet or real life when you are attacked by a woman Male privilege is awsome!!!

I would suggest its more useful to 'be' the sort of society member who lives in your ideal society. Not adjust your behaviour down to conform to your view of how society 'is'.

 

[DallasApple]

Of the men I know.(heterosexual ,non perverts) they do not want to work with children.My best bet is ...they are low paying "not very honorable jobs" requiring hard work and skills with very little recognition ...many men aren't willing to put out.Why aren't more men hard working maids?Its not because they are "perverts"...Its because they aren't willing to work that hard for that little pay and to be considered low intelligence low end workers.(like women) ..they are more willing to take low end jobs that at LEAST demonstrate they are men like "hauling bricks" or digging ditches.

 

[Rakhel]

One of our daughters just started kindergarten today. Her teacher is a man. I have gotten good reports about this guy. Apparently, there has not been one parent who was not happy their child was in his class.
One of our sons had a man for his ABA therapy(I don't know what ABA means, so don't ask.) The guy was fabulous with our son. So good, in fact, that our son went beyond what was expected of him.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I am a feminist so perhaps I am not well suited to answer this, sorry. I am also a pervert but I make no apologies for that!

I would not consider a career that placed me in close proximity with children though I do like them, am considered by most people to be quite good at looking after them and have a gentle but firm manner that suits. In no small portion this is because I have no desire to be suspected of being a pedophile - I do admit to some ephebophilic (post puberty - legal is good) tendencies and as such it is even more pressing to me not to have the two conflated (in the main part though I am an equal opportunity lech - lovely ladies are lovely ladies, so long as I dont get in trouble).

While I do not believe men who are involved with children in their profession or as volunteers (such as scout leaders for example) are all offenders, I must admit that at some level I consider it more likely that they are than I would assume for those very same individuals were they to have a different profession/pastime. At the same time, though the same argument might be applied to women who involve themselves in such professions or pastimes I do not find myself ascribing to the stereotype that they are more likely to be sexual deviants in this manner.

I do not think that such stereotypes will change any time soon, as such I suggest men avoid such professions or pastimes because while society (including both men and women) seems to find combating those gender stereotypes that are disadvantageous to women to be a worthwhile cause for sustained effort, the same cannot be said of those that disadvantage men.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I am a feminist so perhaps I am not well suited to answer this, sorry. I am also a pervert but I make no apologies for that!

I would not consider a career that placed me in close proximity with children though I do like them, am considered by most people to be quite good at looking after them and have a gentle but firm manner that suits. In no small portion this is because I have no desire to be suspected of being a pedophile - I do admit to some ephebophilic (post puberty - legal is good) tendencies and as such it is even more pressing to me not to have the two conflated (in the main part though I am an equal opportunity lech - lovely ladies are lovely ladies, so long as I dont get in trouble).

While I do not believe men who are involved with children in their profession or as volunteers (such as scout leaders for example) are all offenders, I must admit that at some level I consider it more likely that they are than I would assume for those very same individuals were they to have a different profession/pastime. At the same time, though the same argument might be applied to women who involve themselves in such professions or pastimes I do not find myself ascribing to the stereotype that they are more likely to be sexual deviants in this manner.

I do not think that such stereotypes will change any time soon, as such I suggest men avoid such professions or pastimes because while society (including both men and women) seems to find combating those gender stereotypes that are disadvantageous to women to be a worthwhile cause for sustained effort, the same cannot be said of those that disadvantage men.

Hmm...
I'm interested by a couple of things.

1) why would you assume there is an increased chance of a male teacher (for example) sexually abusing a child when compared to a non male teacher, as opposed to a female teacher/non-teacher? Obviously, abuse rates are lower comparing females to males. But if you suppose access is a driver to seek a teaching career, why do you think this effect is limited to males?

2) to those of you wary of male teachers, how do you treat male relatives?

3) as well as looking at the 'protection' you are providing'do you consider the harm in terms of attitudes towards males, and in limiting male role models in children s lives.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

1. Exactly so, at some level subconsciously I assume that seeking a profession/pastime which involves close proximity with children has access as a factor to be more likely for a male than for a female, in part I believe this subconscious process takes into account the fact that women have long had a large proportion of positions with child-intensive components. Therefore a male seeking such a position is in my mind more of an exception, so the reasons that they desire such a position are more suspect (at least to my subconscious mind and perhaps to a degree within my conscious mind as well)

2. I assume you mean around children? Statistically male relatives are the biggest threat to a child in terms of sexual abuse (though females are far more prominent in terms of other forms of abuse, mothers in particular), I have no children.

3. I recognize that advising against such a career path prolongs and exacerbates the stereotyping, I consider this collateral damage, not nearly as important as the individual I am advising. In terms of the children, it's unfortunate, but then again you don't always get what you want or need - certainly not at the expense of others.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1. Exactly so, at some level subconsciously I assume that seeking a profession/pastime which involves close proximity with children has access as a factor to be more likely for a male than for a female, in part I believe this subconscious process takes into account the fact that women have long had a large proportion of positions with child-intensive components. Therefore a male seeking such a position is in my mind more of an exception, so the reasons that they desire such a position are more suspect (at least to my subconscious mind and perhaps to a degree within my conscious mind as well)

2. I assume you mean around children? Statistically male relatives are the biggest threat to a child in terms of sexual abuse (though females are far more prominent in terms of other forms of abuse, mothers in particular), I have no children.

3. I recognize that advising against such a career path prolongs and exacerbates the stereotyping, I consider this collateral damage, not nearly as important as the individual I am advising. In terms of the children, it's unfortunate, but then again you don't always get what you want or need - certainly not at the expense of others.

1) More women than men want to work with children. Agreed. Let's say on average 1 in 1000 men is a pedophile, but 1 in 500 teachers. So double. Let's say 1 in 100000 women are pedophiles. Wouldn't you expect access to victims would drive their behaviour too? That 1 in 50000 female teachers would be pedophiles? I'm not arguing the percentages (I made them up anyway!) just the skewing effect.

2) Exactly...hence my point. Would you 'shelter' your hypothetical kids from male relatives due to fear of sexual abuse? why / why not?

3) I saw discrimination that was both pro and anti male when teaching. Your advice would perhaps be unbalanced, and reflective of stereotypes, not reality. Stereotypes you would be promoting, albeit in an innocent manner.
As for the kids, people don't get into teaching for the cash. Most get into teaching to try and make a positive difference. Male teachers have a massive opportunity to do that. And kids with both male and female role models in my opinion have an advantage.

 

[oldbadger]

In another thread a user suggested, by and large, the only men who pursue work with children are perverts and molesters. He seems to believe:

While I am not a radical feminist, I am a feminist. But I was wondering how non-feminist hetero sexual men feel. Are my feminist beliefs separating me here? Or should we encourage men to take as active a role in children's lives as we do women?

Hello Curious George.

I think I do fit your parameters here..... I am a non-feminist heterosexual man.

1. We must encourage men (and women) from any and all backgrounds to pursue their careers in any direction that they wish, and sexual orientation should be no barrier whatsoever.
2. The other user's suggestion is completely at odds with history. If that user researched the history of sex-crimes and crimes against minors, (which he clearly hasn't) then he might find that convicts came from a wide variety of backgrounds and sexual orientations, including (mostly) heterosexuality.
3. People who insist that non-heterosexuals are auto-perverts etc , if placed under psychoanalysis, might indicate all kinds of neurosis and psychosis gurgling away inside. A bit frightening.....

We do get people who argue like the other user in Britain, but imo they are considered to be 'nutters' over here, and although I can't be bothered to 'source' cases I have noticed over decades that many convicts (of sex-crimes against minors) have often been discovered to be 'self righteous ragers' against their own kind, possibly as some kind of 'diversion' or 'camourflage'.

In 1991 I arrested a man who was giving toy coins to children by a play-park and attempting to lead them away. He had a wife at home and children, the police told me later. I arrested him for stealing the toy-coins, by the way. The police focused upon the other issues later.

If somebody suggested to me that people who have married a much younger woman than themselves are dangerous amongst children (me) I expect that I would feel very very upset. So I do have the ability to empathise with others with varying sexual orientations.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

snip

1. Agreed. However I was stating my awareness of my subconscious processing, not of my conscious reasoning.

2. I do not know what you mean by shelter, I would likely exercise due caution and oversight, other than that, no.

3. I know; yet it would still be my advice.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1. Agreed. However I was stating my awareness of my subconscious processing, not of my conscious reasoning.

Yep, fair enough. Honest assessment is always to be applauded. But I would submit that deliberately focusing on an issue gives you the option of replacing subconscious processing with conscious reasoning.

2. I do not know what you mean by shelter, I would likely exercise due caution and oversight, other than that, no.

Ahhh...confusing choice of words on my part. I merely meant 'protect'. It just strikes me as strange that there would be a reluctance to see teaching as a decent profession for men, a mistrust of men who are teaching younger children, yet no matching mistrust for male relatives.
Statistically, as you know, they are a far greater 'threat'.

3. I know; yet it would still be my advice.

Welp...that's a shame. Probably not much else to add to that, but hopefully you can consider why you think the way you think about this? I've read enough of your posts to know you generally try to think things through.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

1. I agree, one can condition one's own mind to consider things in a different way and this is a useful tool for self development.

2. Perhaps part of that difference is that one does not choose to be a relative and thus choose to be associated with young relatives, however one does choose a profession or past time which might be child focused. I agree with you, it is a curious distinction and one I do not fully comprehend.

3. Given that I would be looking to advise other men (as opposed to myself) I would be looking to attempt to suggest a course of action that would best suit their needs and avoid undue hardship etc. A point of some significant importance for many individuals is public perception of them (something that matters very little to me) by members of the public but also of acquaintances, friends, family, potential partners and so forth. For such an individual (which most people do place no small emphasis on this as it is one of the most significant factors in establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships) in such a situation - public perception of a male engaging in such a profession is a sufficiently negative factor that I would advise males who place any importance on public perception not to engage in a profession focused on children, my reasons for this are rather simple.

The 'diminishing of their manliness'
-Personally I think this is foolish, but if speaking to someone so insecure this would influence my advice as it would be relevant to THEM.

The general increase of suspicion of their sexual inclinations
-I would personally consider this a valid concern, it creates an ongoing cloud of suspicion over the individual in a significant portion of the population, as such it has the very real chance of impacting on their interpersonal relationships in terms of how people see them, importantly it also acts to compound the following point/

The very significant implications of allegations of improper conduct
-Note that in a profession or past time that focuses on children, the liklihood of such allegations arising is far higher as a result of proximity and even incidental contact or remarks. This possibility is then compounded by the above point which acts to predispose a significant portion of people to give greater credibility to those claims. Such allegations are then more likely to progress further in terms of investigation and prosecution and even if later found to be baseless are far more likely to destroy careers and personal lives resulting in that person never being a fully trusted member of society. Given the overwhelming impact of such events (increased in probability by such a career) any contingency planning or risk analysis of the career path that I would consider in formulating my advice would include significant warnings against what I would be left considering to be a devastating scenario.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

2. Perhaps part of that difference is that one does not choose to be a relative and thus choose to be associated with young relatives, however one does choose a profession or past time which might be child focused. I agree with you, it is a curious distinction and one I do not fully comprehend.

I would suggest you're confusing increased incidence vs actual threat. if you had a child, they are at more risk from relatives. If protecting kids supercedes other developmental and relationship considerations, then any objective risk assessment would make you wary of relatives more than teachers.
lam not advocating anything more than due care in either case.

3. Given that I would be looking to advise other men (as opposed to myself) I would be looking to attempt to suggest a course of action that would best suit their needs and avoid undue hardship etc. A point of some significant importance for many individuals is public perception of them (something that matters very little to me) by members of the public but also of acquaintances, friends, family, potential partners and so forth. For such an individual (which most people do place no small emphasis on this as it is one of the most significant factors in establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships) in such a situation - public perception of a male engaging in such a profession is a sufficiently negative factor that I would advise males who place any importance on public perception not to engage in a profession focused on children, my reasons for this are rather simple.

The 'diminishing of their manliness'
-Personally I think this is foolish, but if speaking to someone so insecure this would influence my advice as it would be relevant to THEM.

The general increase of suspicion of their sexual inclinations
-I would personally consider this a valid concern, it creates an ongoing cloud of suspicion over the individual in a significant portion of the population, as such it has the very real chance of impacting on their interpersonal relationships in terms of how people see them, importantly it also acts to compound the following point/

The very significant implications of allegations of improper conduct
-Note that in a profession or past time that focuses on children, the liklihood of such allegations arising is far higher as a result of proximity and even incidental contact or remarks. This possibility is then compounded by the above point which acts to predispose a significant portion of people to give greater credibility to those claims. Such allegations are then more likely to progress further in terms of investigation and prosecution and even if later found to be baseless are far more likely to destroy careers and personal lives resulting in that person never being a fully trusted member of society. Given the overwhelming impact of such events (increased in probability by such a career) any contingency planning or risk analysis of the career path that I would consider in formulating my advice would include significant warnings against what I would be left considering to be a devastating scenario.

You seem to be completely overstating the risks and not offering assessment of opportunity. That makes this an unusual 'risk analysis'.

Would you advise the same friend to avoid caffeine, sell their car and avoid playing sports?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I would suggest you're confusing increased incidence vs actual threat. if you had a child, they are at more risk from relatives. If protecting kids supercedes other developmental and relationship considerations, then any objective risk assessment would make you wary of relatives more than teachers.
lam not advocating anything more than due care in either case.

I was commenting on subconscious processing again sorry if that was unclear ^.^

You seem to be completely overstating the risks and not offering assessment of opportunity. That makes this an unusual 'risk analysis'.

Would you advise the same friend to avoid caffeine, sell their car and avoid playing sports?

There is opportunity in terms of society and the children and this would factor into my consideration depending on the criteria that the individual identified as important to them. I noted that it was based on the assumption that the individual held public perception important as a criteria that might influence their choice, given this assumption there is far less opportunity in terms of the potential teacher than were we to look at a holistic impact assessment.

To me, given I am advising an individual, I am looking to provide an assessment for that individual, the potential benefits to society, to the children and so forth are immaterial unless these are identified explicitly by the individual as being criteria that would effect their decision. I understand that most who get into teaching have at least some desire to contribute to society and to the children's lives, therefore it is likely that any advise I gave them would likely take this into account. However given the vast disparity between potential outcomes, I would not be comfortable with having fulfilled my responsibilities to give accurate and relevant advice had I included such-impacts within the individual specific component.

I might for example mention the potential positive impacts - the child might gain a much needed male role model, a trusted mentor, a source of knowledge, a pillar of support, a friendly face; society might gain some small recognition of a disparity between stereotype and reality, an increased comprehension of what males have to bring to child care, a next generation of students with a more rounded education and upbringing and so forth; however, I would have to explicitly advise with regards to potential individual impacts given the significant disparity, yes there are potential positive impacts, you might find the job rewarding if you value contributing to society or enjoy the company of children (as many do), however the potential individual effects include such significant risks that I would be acting irresponsibly not to call attention to these and these items (as mentioned previously).

My advise need not be entirely negative, I could advise for example if ____ was more important to the individual than these potential risks then perhaps they might consider it. However, that potential overriding negative personal impact would always be mentioned and it would be a case of advising against a profession or past time focused on child care unless one is sufficiently motivated by those positive outcomes, something I am unwilling to assume without explicit confirmation. Thus while my comment earlier was a simplification of the advise I would give, it is still relatively adroit at explaining my position (regardless of that position's validity).

 

[Curious George]

I was commenting on subconscious processing again sorry if that was unclear ^.^


There is opportunity in terms of society and the children and this would factor into my consideration depending on the criteria that the individual identified as important to them. I noted that it was based on the assumption that the individual held public perception important as a criteria that might influence their choice, given this assumption there is far less opportunity in terms of the potential teacher than were we to look at a holistic impact assessment.

To me, given I am advising an individual, I am looking to provide an assessment for that individual, the potential benefits to society, to the children and so forth are immaterial unless these are identified explicitly by the individual as being criteria that would effect their decision. I understand that most who get into teaching have at least some desire to contribute to society and to the children's lives, therefore it is likely that any advise I gave them would likely take this into account. However given the vast disparity between potential outcomes, I would not be comfortable with having fulfilled my responsibilities to give accurate and relevant advice had I included such-impacts within the individual specific component.

I might for example mention the potential positive impacts - the child might gain a much needed male role model, a trusted mentor, a source of knowledge, a pillar of support, a friendly face; society might gain some small recognition of a disparity between stereotype and reality, an increased comprehension of what males have to bring to child care, a next generation of students with a more rounded education and upbringing and so forth; however, I would have to explicitly advise with regards to potential individual impacts given the significant disparity, yes there are potential positive impacts, you might find the job rewarding if you value contributing to society or enjoy the company of children (as many do), however the potential individual effects include such significant risks that I would be acting irresponsibly not to call attention to these and these items (as mentioned previously).

My advise need not be entirely negative, I could advise for example if ____ was more important to the individual than these potential risks then perhaps they might consider it. However, that potential overriding negative personal impact would always be mentioned and it would be a case of advising against a profession or past time focused on child care unless one is sufficiently motivated by those positive outcomes, something I am unwilling to assume without explicit confirmation. Thus while my comment earlier was a simplification of the advise I would give, it is still relatively adroit at explaining my position (regardless of that position's validity).

I understand your point, but I am glad you weren't around to give Rosa Parks advice.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yet my advice to her would be if you refuse to move then you might get lynched, on the other hand you would have the opportunity to assert your rights, you might act as a role model for other black people, you might cause some white people to reconsider what they were doing (or at least force them to have to actually consciously think about it as opposed to simply taking the hegemony for granted) etc... It is essential when you give advise that you present the very stark and real problems, then indicate those things that might be valued by that individual such as to overcome their reticence over those problems. I believe to advise in any other manner is to fail one's duty to provide the advice recipient with a realistic comprehension of the dangers and it is only through this that one is able to establish informed consent.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yet my advice to her would be if you refuse to move then you might get lynched, on the other hand you would have the opportunity to assert your rights, you might act as a role model for other black people, you might cause some white people to reconsider what they were doing (or at least force them to have to actually consciously think about it as opposed to simply taking the hegemony for granted) etc... It is essential when you give advise that you present the very stark and real problems, then indicate those things that might be valued by that individual such as to overcome their reticence over those problems. I believe to advise in any other manner is to fail one's duty to provide the advice recipient with a realistic comprehension of the dangers and it is only through this that one is able to establish informed consent.

Welp, we don't quite agree, but I really respect the clear and detailed way you've explained yourself. Certainly lets me see where you're coming from.

 

[Curious George]

However, that potential overriding negative personal impact would always be mentioned and it would be a case of advising against a profession or past time focused on child care unless one is sufficiently motivated by those positive outcomes, something I am unwilling to assume without explicit confirmation.

Then perhaps before you give advice you should simply ask questions.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Welp, we don't quite agree, but I really respect the clear and detailed way you've explained yourself. Certainly lets me see where you're coming from.

And I learned some more about my own position which is always good to know.

Then perhaps before you give advice you should simply ask questions.

Were I to provide advice to an individual? I would; how could I possibly give relevant or accurate advice without seeking out information that might effect the analysis?

Were I to provide advice in general? A more tricky subject - I would likely limit myself to listing factors for and against and neither encouraging nor discouraging such a move.