Subscribe via Email
Subscribe via Email
To all those who worry about the paedophile plague ….they fail to understand the terrible damage that is done by this system of presuming guilt in the entire male population just because of the tendencies of a tiny minority
… the problem is the general collapse of trust. Almost every human relationship that was sensibly regulated by trust is now governed by law, with cripplingly expensive consequences
Come off it, folks: how many paedophiles can there be?
Really? I said, not quite able to believe my luck. There we were, waiting for take-off, and I had just been having a quick zizz. It was a long flight ahead, all the way to India, and I had two children on my left. Already they were toughing each other up and sticking their fingers up each other’s nose, and now — salvation!
Hovering above me was a silk-clad British Airways stewardess with an angelic smile, and she seemed to want me to move. “Please come with me, sir” said the oriental vision.
At once, I got her drift. She desired to upgrade me. In my mind’s eye, I saw the first-class cabin, the spiral staircase to the head massage, the Champagne, the hot towels.
“You betcha!” I said, and began to unbuckle. At which point, the children set up a yammering. Oi, they said to me, where do you think you are going? I was explaining that the captain had probably spotted me come on board, don’t you know. Doubtless he had decided that it was outrageous for me to fly steerage, sound chap that he was. I’d make sure to come back now and then, hmmm?
At which the stewardess gave a gentle cough. Actually, she said, she was proposing to move me to row 52, and that was because — she lowered her voice — “We have very strict rules”.
Eh? I said, by now baffled. “A man cannot sit with children,” she said; and then I finally twigged. “But he’s our FATHER”, chimed the children. “Oh,” said the stewardess, and then eyed me narrowly. “These are your children?” “Yes,” I said, a bit testily. “Very sorry,” she said, and wafted down the aisle — and in that single lunatic exchange you will see just about everything you need to know about our dementedly phobic and risk-averse society. In the institutionalised prejudice of that BA stewardess against an adult male, you see one of the prime causes of this country’s tragic under-achievement in schools.
I mention all this because the same absurd kerfuffle happened this week. Some child was put next to an ancient journalist and his wife on a flight, and the airline (BA again) went into spasm. As the hoo-ha raged, the press turned to the lobby groups, and someone called Pam Hibbert of Barnardo’s obliged with the usual bossyboots quote. The ban on sitting children next to adults was “eminently sensible”, said this eminently ridiculous figure.
I mean, come off it, folks. How many paedophiles can there be? Are we really saying that any time an adult male finds himself sitting next to someone under 16, he must expect to be hustled from his seat before the suspicious eyes of the entire cabin?
What about adult females? Every week there is some new tale of what a saucy French mistress is deemed to have done with her adolescent charges behind the bicycle sheds; and, disgraceful though these episodes may be, I don’t hear anyone saying that children should be shielded from adult women. Do you? Or maybe I’m wrong — maybe all adults will have to carry personal cardboard partitions with them on every plane or train, just in case they find themselves sitting next to under-16s.
Even as I write, I can imagine the lip-pursing of some of my lovely high-minded readers. How would you like it, they will say, if some weird chap was plonked next to your kids? And they are right that I would worry about some strange adult sitting next to my children, chiefly because I wouldn’t want the poor fellow to come to any harm.
To all those who worry about the paedophile plague, I would say that they not only have a very imperfect understanding of probability; but also that they fail to understand the terrible damage that is done by this system of presuming guilt in the entire male population just because of the tendencies of a tiny minority.
There are all sorts of reasons why the numbers of male school teachers are down 50 per cent in the period 1981 to 2001, and why the ratio of female to male teachers in primary schools is now seven to one. There are problems of pay, and the catastrophic failure of the state to ensure that they are treated as figures of authority and respect; and what with ‘elf ‘n’ safety and human rights it is very hard to enforce discipline.
But it is also, surely, a huge deterrent to any public-spirited man contemplating a career in education that society apparently regards all adult male contact with young people as being potentially a bit dodgy, a bit rum, a bit you know…
It is a total disaster. It is not just that both boys and girls could do with more male role models in the classroom. Worse still, it often used to be men who taught physics, and maths, and chemistry, and it is the current shortage of such teachers that explains why 80 per cent of pupils studying physics are now taught by someone with a degree in biology; and that in turn helps explain why the numbers doing physics A-level have halved, and why physics departments are closing all over the shop, with all the consequent damage to our science base.
It has tended to be male teachers who take contact sports. Even if they can find a playing-field, these days, the poor male sports teachers have to cope with a terrifying six-inch thick manual explaining how they must on no account shout at their charges, and above all, on pain of prosecution, they must NOT BE LEFT ALONE with the kids. No wonder our children are apparently turning into big fat Augustus Gloops.
It is insane, and the problem is the general collapse of trust. Almost every human relationship that was sensibly regulated by trust is now governed by law, with cripplingly expensive consequences.
I blame the media, I blame the judges, I blame the lobby groups, and in particular I blame the cowardly capitalist airline companies that give in to this sort of loony hysteria. If you happen to be reading this on a British Airways flight, and have quite rightly sustained a burst blood vessel, then I think you are entitled to an immediate upgrade.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Boris,
As a faculty head in a grammar school, may I commend you for your educational insights and inimitable deconstriction of the regulatory absurdities with which teachers find themselves confronted. There are indeed very strict protocols on dealing with children, and even more on external school visits. If my faculty wishes to take (say)6 boys on a visit, I may not take them, yet a female teacher may. If such a visit occurs, and I wish to go myself, the school must also be deprived of a female teacher to (presumably) ‘keep an eye on me’.
It is no wonder that the frequency of such visits is diminishing; they are becoming a bureacratic nightmare.
I hosted your Boss, Mr Willetts, yesterday, and he was grilled by the Sixth Form. There are very high expectations of what the next Conservative government will do for education, and we at Slough Grammar rest easily at night knowing you are part of David Willetts’ team. We wish you well.
Hear hear. Imagine if the same kinds of assumptions were made about people from ethnic communities. Imagine a West Indian passenger being moved on the basis that he might be a thief. This sort of twisted thinking is dizzying. It is symptomatic of the dismal safety-first credo peddled by public agencies and the spineless courts that reward every witless claim of victimhood.
Most of all it is the fault of a cretinous government that is so intent on inverting traditional hierarchies that it automatically dentifies all representations of power (including adulthood and masculinity) as inherently evil. When Blair’s junta is finally booted out, I just hope that the Tories have the stomach to unravel all their pernicious nonsense and consign it to the dustbin of history.
Boris, I’m with you on the lunacy of BA, but don’t you think perhaps there’d be a lot less worry if the Government did their job and actually locked them up instead of given them token sentences and then leaving them free to roam the streets? Every time a sex offender gets a stupidly low sentence, it just feeds into the fear.
Moral considerations aside, if BA can promise I won’t have to sit next to wriggling brat for the whole flight, I’m flying BA.
I wish you were right Boris, I do, I wish I could agree with you, but I don’t. If you saw Panorama last night you will have some notion that even when paedophiles are caught and convicted their supervision is woefully inadequate. Getting that conviction is incredibly difficult, easier if the offender is a stranger but near impossible if the abuser is a friend of the family or worse, a relative.
Some of these sickos are willing to forcibly rape a 3 month old baby. Most babies are around 6-7 lbs at birth. That’s little over 3 bags of sugar. You know how a grown man is built. As long as there is little or no restraint for these perverts, and we must remember their human rights and fathers for justice etc., then paedohysteria will not only continue but will be completely justified, nay sensible. You see, what about women? There are stories in the news of grown women being involved in such things but mostly they are doing it for a man that is also involved or they are encouraging the attentions of a teenager. I’m not saying this is right but there is more of an element of violation with a girl than a boy if the girl is raped and the boy allowed. Citation needed but I’m sure I read somewhere that the fact is that men make up 98% of sex offenders. Given that Fact Boris, as a mother I think a little discrimination totally justified.
Could it be sour grapes on an important subject Boris - you’re miffed because you didn’t get into 1st class and got stuck being ‘Al the daddy’ instead of ‘Boris the VIP’?
I like this Tayles chap. The previous post under Iraq was magnificent and the quality continues .
This nugget of PC lunacy has been extensively covered elsewhere so I like the section broadening the subject at the end .On the probability of a paedophile being sat next to child , though , it probably does not need saying, but these are not particles in Brownian motion . When the randomness of a flight seat does not apply, relying on statistics is insufficient. Look, for example, at what happened to the care facilities in Islington under Margaret Hodge. “Why”, he said wistfully , and apropos of nothing ,” is that woman still employed ?”
Vigilance is required out of all proportion to the numbers involved. I would not like any Libertarian principles to interfere with strict monitoring in a number of contexts. I would be concerned if an adult male sat next to my young son if , for no obvious reason, he chose to. Perhaps this is irrational, it is more irrational to expect parents to be rational about it .
I have heard much of the sort of thing Adrian Hilton complains about from teachers of my acquaintance, and he is obviously a very good egg . On the other hand I wonder how he would react to this suggestion.
Nothing any government does to move the furniture around educationally is likely to work until teachers can be fired . Many consistently under perform and yet they stay, infecting schools with sub jobsworth cynicism. The Unions are resisting a suggestion that science teachers might be paid more on a simple supply and demand basis . This is the tiniest step in the right direction, but shows the role of the teaching unions in obstructing progress. Teachers may feel justifiably aggrieved when they are ritually harangued ,while other, worse cases , like the police , are described as wonderful. Nonetheless, it is worth remembering that any number of systems can and have worked well . With poor teachers, none will.
What would Mr. Hilton suggest and does he agree with any of this ? I hasten to add that absolutely no offence is intended. I am well aware that there are plenty of teachers whose heroic dedication is not rewarded or respected enough. To me this is part of the same problem. His own school is doubtless a shining exception to the general disaster that is education in this country .If so , where is it ? I would like to move nearby. ( Do they play rugby ?)
Newmania makes very important points.
This is the first time I have posted comment on Boris’ blog. I have been waiting for an education topic to which I could contribute. In this post, he touches on the sort of madness with which teachers are confronted daily.
When it comes to dismissing ‘bad teachers’, the reality is rather different from the fictional practice. Heads can and do get rid of bad teachers. Of course there is a process, and it may be lengthy, but ultimately the Head and Governors have a statutory obligation to educate children. ‘Bad’ teachers (ie those who do not or cannot educate), are (I assure you) removed. However, there are others - one might say ‘developing’ or ‘learning’ - who need support and guidance in their chosen career path. Government expects other teachers to do this, without any extra funding or incentive. There is a dearth of teachers in some subjects, and I can understand a Head’s desire that someone (not quite anyone) in front of the classroom is better than no-one.
The tragedy is that teachers get sick of it, especially male primary school teachers (a species almost extinct) who are invariably made to feel observed, as if their vocation were somehow linked to sexual prediliction.
A HILTON- I for one would be highly interested to know what direction you feel we should be taking and how we might get there ?
Personally I find it infinitely easier to see the problem than to offer any solution.
While I sympathise with Jaq’s fears, it is precisely this skewed view of the world which we need to challenge. It’s little wonder that we have the lost the ability to make a rational assesment of the risk posed by perverts when the government and the media have been exaggerating them to further to appear tough and caring in equal measures.
The truth is that the number of child attacks in this country is remarkably low and has been for decades. The very reason that they receive such conspicuous news coverage is that they are so rare. Although individual cases are tragic, there is no reason to believe that the draconian regulation that the government and public agencies has introduced will do anything to protect a single child. All they have succeeded in doing is poisoning informal relationships between adults and children.
The climate of fear and suspicion that this perpetuates further fragments our society, making us increasingly wary of other people. This does child safety no favours at all. We need to regain adult authority and return to the days when we thought of children as a public responsibility, rather than the care of individual parents or the state.
Well said Boris. One point you failed to mention. Do BA allow children to fly alone? Well no they don’t so why isn’t it the responsibility of the (dare I say it???) Parent or Carer to ensure that these children are OK not a 20 year old trolley dolly who can only regurgitate the policies and procedures of BA and sell over priced perfume.
Keep up the good work - Boris for PM
Andy
Tayles - I do NOT have a “skewed view of the world” thank you very much. You state “The truth is that the number of child attacks in this country is remarkably low and has been for decades. The very reason that they receive such conspicuous news coverage is that they are so rare.” and that’s the truth is it? Good grief I didn’t realise I was talking to God and that you’re omnipresent; in every home, and everywhere at all times and able to see every incident whether reported or not. And that you’re aware of the details of all the incidents that are reported. My apologies Sir.
And if you’re not God my daughter would like a ‘glitterator’ for xmas, thankyou.
Boris, as usual, makes two important points, one of which holds water and one of which is glossed over and trimmed to fit the word count for this article.
He makes them very well, also as usual.
Boris is right that there’s a degree of hysteria and gender-based demonization that is entirely inappropriate, not to mention ineffective. Pedophiles are a scourge, and they are inadequately contained, treated, and monitored, it’s true, but innocent men are being scapegoated for no good reason, nor does it diminish the number of real attacks.
Now let’s talk about the second point he makes: that this societal prejudice reduces the number of male teachers (agreed) and, further, that this hurts the teaching of physical education, sciences and maths.
Correct, with a caveat, and that is this: That the reason there aren’t adequate numbers of female teachers in the sciences and physical education is that they have been systematically discriminated against.
I used to work with the Women Do Math conference here in BC, which encouraged teenage girls to stay in sciences and maths. We took the best female scientists available and let them run workshops all weekend with teenage girls who came from all over the province, and those girls, the best in their schools, told us some horrror stories about the obstacles they had to overcome to attend, or even to be called upon in class. Some teachers simply never called on girls to answer questions. Our president said she got involved in organizing the conference when, at a teacher-parent meeting, the math teacher said “your daughter’s not doing well in math because she doesn’t pay attention, but it doesn’t matter, since she’s a girl. She won’t need it.”
Girls are systematically encouraged out of the sciences throughout school, and this results in a dearth of female scientists. I know a few, and the horror stories they have to tell are real eye-openers.
So if the current prejudice against men means that women have to be the science teachers, perhaps we will see a correction and women will now be less discouraged from pursuing science. What a shame that there’s always a lag time.
I must say, I’m highly for any airline policy that insists a parent sit with their children, particularly if the children are of the nose-poking age and type. But really, could the flight attendant not have looked at the passenger list and seen they were related? It’s not as if the kids made their own reservations. Failure of bureaucracy as well as a stupid policy.
raincoaster - excellent point well made. If my daughter told me she wanted to study science I would, of course, support her, but I would also try hard to dissuade her from doing so, just as my mother did.
I’m not sure how much of a new phenomenon this all is. When I was 15, in the summer of 1995, a couple of friends and I were playing cricket on the local primary school playing fields. After about half an hour some sort of summer holiday playgroup for primary school kids (they all looked about 5 years old) started up around one hundred yards away.
One of the women taking the playgroup came over to us and told us we had to leave because of ‘child safety’. We innocently assured her that we were just having a gentle knock around and were not going to hit the ball far enough to hurt on of her kids.
‘That’s not what I’m worried about’ she said, ‘You can’t play here when the children are here’. So we left and went to play somewhere else. Even though we were 15 year old kids at the time she wasn’t going to have us anywhere near the group of 5 year olds, presumably in case we abducted one of them.
As for sitting next to kids on public transport, as long as they look quiet, and don’t strike me as the sort to puke all over my trousers, I have no qualms whatsoever about doing it. It’s better than sitting next to someone who smells, or is so enormous you are cramped for seating space.
Ouch! Quite a response, Jaq. Sadly I am not God. I’m not even a believer. However, I stand by my comments. If you are suggesting that we’ve no way of knowing how many unreported attacks take place on children, then you’re probably right. But if we don’t know then there’s no justification for fearing the worst, for treating all men as potential sex-offenders, and for encouraging us to treat each other with suspicion.
My argument is that the culture of fear and loathing this attitude promotes only divides communities further, alienating people from each other and driving children further from the public gaze. If anything this will make it easier for attacks in the home to take place. I honestly cannot imagine how formalising relationships between adults and children, spooking people with ’stranger danger’ campaigns, and allowing the state to mediate our contact with others is supposed to result in an open, trusting and safe society.
No one is talking about playing down genuine risks; just getting things in perspective. It’s easy to read reports of heinous attacks of children and instinctively feel that drastic measures are needed. But we must also consider the wider social repercussions. We need to challenge the idea that questions of safety brook no argument and look at the bigger picture. I, for one, am sick of people treating masculinity as a disease to be cured.
Even as I write, I can imagine the lip-pursing of some of my lovely high-minded readers. How would you like it, they will say, if some weird chap was plonked next to your kids? And they are right that I would worry about some strange adult sitting next to my children, chiefly because I wouldn’t want the poor fellow to come to any harm.
Ha Ha! This article is spot on Boris…well done for saying it!
Have you seen this: [Ed: need for moderation on the site]
Tayles - your implied critism of me is baseless, you will discover this if you read what I actually say rather than what you think I’ve said. (said in text that is) I am perfectly willing to argue about I do say but will not waste time fighting all the supposed wrongs that you imagine.
You talk in impressive general terms: “getting things in perspective” and “consider the wider social repercussions” and of course “look at the bigger picture”. You didn’t vote New Labour by any chance did you??
“Correct, with a caveat, and that is this: That the reason there aren’t adequate numbers of female teachers in the sciences and physical education is that they have been systematically discriminated against.”
??
Hmmm. Typical feminist comment. It’s never because the women are crap at the job or just don’t want to do it. It is always because they are being discriminated against. Funny how few women there are lugging a hod full of house bricks up a ladder. Working down sewage pipes. Climbing about on roofs in all weathers on slippery tiles. Etc, etc. Discrimination? Nah. Hard, dangerous work. The perpetual victim mentality of the average feminist is evidence that most of them are nuts!
I can still remember when paedophiles were first invented. It was probably sometime in the 1980s, when there was a sudden media storm about something called the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which were a bunch a of paedophiles (I had to look the word up in a dictionary) exchanging information on pre-web message boards. All of a sudden, we were presented with the vision of organised gangs of child molesters roaming the streets.
I wondered what the fuss was all about. It was well known before this that there were men who preyed upon children. My mother used to warn me not to accept sweets from strangers, who might abduct me and abuse me in nameless ways. And I was myself once, aged 8 or so, lured into a gents’ toilet by one of them (he wanted to show me something ‘interesting’), and prevented from leaving, with it being perfectly visible to me that he was in a state of considerable arousal. This was, I supposed, what he’d wanted to show me. I only escaped when a large, middle-aged man in a pinstripe suit walked in, and I promptly ran out. I regarded the episode as instructive rather than traumatising. I didn’t even bother to report him (he was a steward on a ship, so wasn’t going anywhere), but simply decided to keep my distance thereafter.
Such people exist, and have always existed, and always will exist. Indeed, in ancient Greece, a love of boys was regarded as quite normal. It no longer is these days, but I find it hard to see that such people pose a terrible menace to children, unless they maim or murder them.
What we have these days is pure hysteria (as with almost everything else). And my mother’s simple advice still seems to me the best advice.
Eric, if there’s one thing I detest it’s being condescended to by a person who is inferior to me, such as you.
I have the numbers, and I have the experience. Boris himself has written about how few women are in the sciences, and I can tell you that there are systematic reasons for this. One of the reasons that biology degree holders are teaching the other sciences is that women are less discriminated against in biology, it being often a prerequisite for medicine.
I also know several women who are in construction, so please don’t paint me or my friends or the people I’m talking about with the same brush. You’ve perhaps had dealings with some bog-standard doctrinaire feminists. It’s time to get over that and treat me and the other people who disagree with you as individuals, however hard that may be for you. Step up.
I do not agree with BA’s (and I believe a New Zealand airline do the same) policy on this one in theory, especially since, as far as I am aware, most children are abused by someone who would be allowed to sit next to them anyway i.e parent, relative, mothers partner etc. However, I do agree with Jaq and Pete in that this is a symptom of the problem not the problem itself. If parents could be safe in the knowledge that their child would be safe then BA would not need to do the governments job. However, the government have failed in their duty to protect children from abuse by failing to provide a deterrant to would be abusers and failing to secure those already convicted.
And Tayles, child abuse is extremely common, I know several people who were abused as children and not one of their cases has ever had any media coverage despite the abuser being convicted. Perhaps you might want to take a look at this weeks newspapers to see how common child abuse is.
I am not so sure that the danger of men being left alone with children is putting men off working with children as it is becoming trendy for men to work as nannies and au-pairs, which involves being alone with a child far more than being a teacher does.
I do think more people need to be encouraged to teach science, though. I think part of the problem is tution fees and the lack of grants while studying towards an undergraduate degree. What is the point of paying a fortune, getting in debt up to your eyeballs to take a job with rotten pay? The problem will only get worse if universities are allowed to charge their own fees, unless wages for teachers are increased.
Jaq, I’m perplexed. I didn’t realise I was criticising you. I was only pointing out the inconsitencies in your argument. It’s called debate. We throw differing opinions back and forth and hopefully get to the truth of the matter. At the risk of offending you further, I think you might be taking these things a little too personally.
Since this is an online forum and not the space to print a manuscript outlining my views, I have to use general terms. If you really want me to outline what I mean by these terms, let me know and I’ll start writing.
In the meantime, let’s look at what you DID say:
“Good grief I didn’t realise I was talking to God and that you’re omnipresent; in every home, and everywhere at all times and able to see every incident whether reported or not. And that you’re aware of the details of all the incidents that are reported. My apologies Sir.”
Aside from the sarcastic tone, your point is quite clear: that no one can possibly know the extent of abuse that takes place in the privacy of the home. This is precisely what I picked up on in the first paragraph of my last post. The final two paragraphs diverged from your comments are were not intended to allude to anything you said, imaginary or otherwise.
Shall we move on?
I also once used to know, some 30 years ago, a one-time teacher. He taught at a state school, and some of his pupils were teenage girls.
He was quite good-looking. And he told me that teenage girls would quite regularly walk up to him in school, and say, “Please, sir, will you f*** me?”
“And what was your response?” I inquired.
“Well, eventually, I did,” he said. “What would you have done?”
Eventually, the school authorities found out about it, and he was fired. And he was not only fired, but he was never able to get a teaching job again.
When I knew him, he was a drug dealer, living just across the road from a police station. The last I heard of him was that one day the police came over and arrested him, and he was sent to prison.
I still occasionally mull over the question he asked me. What would I have done? Clearly the right thing to do would have been to tell the girl to wash her mouth out and go away. But, really, how many men are going to repeatedly turn down such explicit offers from pretty young girls in mini-skirts? Not many, I imagine. Probably not me either.
I wondered afterwards how many other teachers had lost their jobs in similar circumstances.
It is not the man in the next seat that is a threat to children but those who sit on the new labour benches of Parliament with their deliberate destruction of the nuclear family, nausiating spin and propaganda pumped out ad nauseum.
The constant hype and misinformation about domestic violence, terrorism, bird flu, exploding baby bottles, phoney kidnap plots to destroy fathers groups and so on… and on … all to distract from the problems they cause and the moral cesspit this country is sinking into.
I have no wish to sully Boris’s blog with pointless arguments with feminists. (I say pointless, because I have yet to meet a single one of those creatures who was capable of admitting fault in anything) so this will be my last word on this subject. (The perfect cue for you to get a quick stab in without fear of reprisal raincoaster).
“Eric, if there’s one thing I detest it’s being condescended to by a person who is inferior to me, such as you.”
Very interesting! There is a word in the English language for someone who believes themselves to be superior. What is it now? Supremacist? Narcissist? Or, is it, SEXIST? No wait. It cannot be sexist. Women are never sexist. Only men are sexist.
Men are “sexist” whenever they are critical of female behaviour. This also makes them, misogynists. Females however, are never guilty of sexism, or Misandry, (hatred of males) no matter how cutting, ruthless, rude, or “superior” they think they are to men. Now, who was it that made up these rules again? Ah yes. Feminists. Therefore, when a feminist says, “A husband is just a rapist that buys you flowers.” As Marilyn French once did. That kind of remark is simply the “oppressed” fighting back against the “patriarchy” and the fact that it implies that all men are rapists (also said by Ms French) is by the by. Nothing “sexist” or anti male about it at all.
Hmmm.
The wave of protest from women when men are discriminated against on TV, in Adverts, movies, millions of women’s periodicals, magazines, on chat shows, daytime TV shows etc, etc, is deafening for its silence. That rather suggests an agenda and a double standard is operating.
“I also know several women who are in construction, so please don’t paint me or my friends or the people I’m talking about with the same brush.”
“Several” bricks will not a high wall make! Pointing out that a few women have braved the milder ends of the construction business does not make my point less valid. I do not see a rush of females wanting to walk the slippery slopes of a high roof in the rain. But then again, I do not hear much female praise for the men who do so either. I do, however, hear the sound of bitching females who would not recognise happiness if it was to run them over in the street disguised as a large bar of chocolate with the words, “Eat me. You know you want too.” written on it.
You see, as long as there are women there will be few happy ones. No matter how “ideal” the world is made for them, they will always find a reason to excoriate men because therein lies their power. They are, in the main, genetically programmed to see themselves as poor little victims whilst claiming to be strong. Which is why you find so few of them shouting that abused men ought to have a refuge or two to go too with their kids. To say that, is to be forced to admit that maybe, just maybe, they do not have the majority share of the victim market after all. Such reality would be too much to bare.
“I have the numbers, and I have the experience. Boris himself has written about how few women are in the sciences, and I can tell you that there are systematic reasons for this…”
For some reason I imagined this spoken out loud in those bossy tones women adopt when they want to try to prove their superiority over the rest of us. I have the numbers, and I have the experience..
I, I, I, me, me, me, mine, mine, mine. These are feminist words that mean, I AM ALWAYS RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING! But, also words that reveal just what they really are. As I said before, NUTS.
Tayles - you didn’t realisie you were critising me? You should pay more attention. There were no “inconsitencies” in my argument. And the charge of “I think you might be taking these things a little too personally” is an easy refuge for a weak point.
Since this is an online forum and not the space to print a manuscript outlining my views, I have to use general terms. If you really want me to outline what I mean by these terms, let me know and I’ll start writing.
This is a blog which welcomes detailed and well constructed views - start writing!
Eric, I believe myself to be superior to you not because you are male (this is the Internet; we really have no way of knowing) but rather because you fail to analyze my remarks, preferring to categorize and thus dismiss me.
You are not inferior because you are male; you are inferior because you do not think analytically, you do not treat other people as individuals, and you are desperately mistaken and only dig yourself in deeper, rather than support your argument with facts or logic. I welcome your lengthy remarks here, because nothing I could say could possibly prove me as correct as your own testimony.
Welcome.
Those here who seem to agree with barring men from having any ad hoc contact with any children should remember that this does untold harm to our sons who are being brought up solely by women, who do not understand them, often do not encourage them to take part in household tasks, do not look upon them as friends like they do with daughters (and why would they) and who, at least the feminists amongst them, see men and boys as inferior thereby disadvantaging them.
Does a modern woman have her sons’ interests at heart when she believes she is held back by men.
Eric Poad
Is your problem with women or feminists, you seem to switch between the two? By the by, exactly, what do you mean by “as long as there are women, there will be few happy ones”. Are you suggesting if women did not exist, more women would be happy? Now I am just a girly natural scientist, but that would seem to be a metaphysical (ooh get me) imposibility.
I also think if happiness was in disguise as a giant, walking chocolate bar feminists (and all other beings) could be forgiven for not recognising it. Especially if it was a giant, walking chocolate bar that had run them down, as we feminists do not associate being run down with happiness, sorry.
By the way did you mean “to go to with their kids”?
Actually Raincoaster, I think it is you that has misunderstood Erics point. He was not trying to make an analysis of all you said. He was simply pointing out that women (well, some women of a feminist persuasion) always see discrimination in every place where women are unrepresented. Eric pulled out one sentence from your remarks to make that point and I think he did very well.
We are always hearing about how political parties must have quotas for women. Is that because there are no women standing for election? No. There are women standing. Maybe not as many as feminists would like though. So, they put pressure on to get quotas adopted as a way of short circuiting merit. To do this, they claim sexism and discrimination.
It is not only in politics that the double standards mentioned by Eric operate though. We see these double standards everywhere. I work in an office. Just a week ago, a female emploee at my firm thought it would would be funny to grasp..[Ed: need to moderate here]and shout Pwhooor! As I passed her desk. Everyone, men and women, laughed loudly. All enjoying the “joke.” I looked at her and said, loudly enough for all to hear, “Shall I sue you now for sexual harrassment and get you fired and have your name splashed across the papers the way men are when they do things like that?” She seemed at a loss. Finally she said, “Whats the matter. Did I hurt the poor little thing” and then [Ed: unsuitable commentary]. Everyone laughed again. I seriously thought about reporting her and have made up my mind that I shall do so if another female acts in this way in future.
My point, and I believe, Eric’s point is, that you women cannot have it both ways. You talk non stop about how bad men are but you never look at yourselves. The smell of self righteousness is nauseating.
k said:
Feminists can always be replied upon to miss the humour. I see your aim is as wild as the rest of your “sistas”
Well, we can have it both ways if men like you do not stand up for yourselves in the workplace and report women.
LondonLad, Eric’s own remarks prove your support of him misguided. And if I’d have been you, I’d have filed. I’m all about an even playing field, not protectionism. If we’d had that twenty years ago, we’d have enough capable, trained and experienced female scientists, math teachers, and politicians by now.
I did not say one thing you attributed to me in your last comment Eric. For one think I know the difference between replied and relied!
‘I wondered afterwards how many other teachers had lost their jobs in similar circumstances’ (idlex)
We had a geography teacher at high school who was sacked for sleeping with a sixth-former. She was 18 at the time, I wouldn’t have said he was a paedophile, just predatory. He was hated by most of the students as a ‘nonce’ though.
Anyway, this was back in my rebelious days, and a girl I went to school with and I grassed him up to a tabloid. We wanted to see him named and shamed, preferably on the front page, rumour had it that it wasn’t the first time, and that the other girls were more like 16 when he dipped his wick.
It was all very exciting. The girl I knew did some digging around for gossip in the Sixth-Form Centre, I called the newsdesk. They sent a reporter up to our school, we sneaked out on our free period to meet him, he drove us up the road in his sporty Peugeot 306, and we dished the dirt.
He managed to get a photo of the teacher that evening and a statement from County Hall to confirm he had been dismissed for gross misconduct. He never managed to get a photo of the girl in time though and the story never got in. We still got £75 each for the ‘tip and info’ though.
Last anyone heard of the teacher he was doing those door-to-door vacuum cleaner demonstrations.
I have noticed that whenever a feamle wishes to avoid answering a question she will put up a smokescreen by either, changing the subject, picking a flaw in a sentence a man utters and thus avoiding the larger issue, or take the piss in the hope of being able to create an argument on another issue. Amply demonstrated by the cabal of women ganging up here.
I believe that when women rush to each others aid — regardless of the rights or wrongs of the argument but simply because of misguided loyalty to their gender and an inability to face the facts — it is called, “mobbing.” Mobbing is something birds too when a dangerous, bigger bird, comes into their territory. Is that why women are called “birds” I wonder?
k - I thought you hit the nail on the head in your 6:04 PM comment and made a very good point in your 6:14 PM comment: there is a male assistant in my local nursery yet no male primary teachers in my local school. The Head and assistant Head teachers are male however.
A relative was offered a Head teacher post recently and refused it - it really was too much stress for too little pay. The increase in salary was not in proportion to the increase in responsibility. So is the answer to increase pay? Hmn, there are such things as ‘protected salaries’ in education. This means that it doesn’t matter what the person does, they will get the same money. I know of many ex teachers who work in local council positions, for which they have no experience or expertise, and happy to do an admin job with no stress for around 30K pa. (not my relative I hasten to add, who is still teaching) So, I think a lot of past decisions need to be addressed and the sorting out is going to take time.
However, I am not at all worried about my son being taught by women - it’s not the messenger I’m most concerned about, it’s the message. Have you seen some government initiatives?
k said… you misread my remarks. Allow me to help you out.
Read them like this: Imagine your name is June and not Bitter, as I have nicknamed you.
(June)….Feminists can always be replied upon to miss the humour. I see your aim is as wild as the rest of your “sistas.”
Do you see now? No? Oh well. Take something for the PMT and have a lie down.
“I did not say one thing you attributed to me in your last comment Eric. For one think I know the difference between replied and relied!”
Ahh. There is the self righteousness again! I made a slip in typing and you pounce for the kill with all the evil glee of the witches in MacBeth. Yet fail to notice that you hoisted yourself on your own petard. “For one THINK I know…..” one THINK? Hmm. Well, no one is perfect, even feminists.
Well, I am off now. Your misdirections, ganging up, spitefullness, inability to see the point and nit picking over typing errors is boring and I have a life to lead. So, bye bye girls. Hope we meet again when you grow up.
“We had a geography teacher at high school who was sacked for sleeping with a sixth-former. She was 18 at the time, I wouldn’t have said he was a paedophile, just predatory. He was hated by most of the students as a ‘nonce’ though.
Anyway, this was back in my rebelious days, and a girl I went to school with and I grassed him up to a tabloid. We wanted to see him named and shamed, preferably on the front page, rumour had it that it wasn’t the first time, and that the other girls were more like 16 when he dipped his wick.
It was all very exciting. The girl I knew did some digging around for gossip in the Sixth-Form Centre, I called the newsdesk. They sent a reporter up to our school, we sneaked out on our free period to meet him, he drove us up the road in his sporty Peugeot 306, and we dished the dirt.
He managed to get a photo of the teacher that evening and a statement from County Hall to confirm he had been dismissed for gross misconduct. He never managed to get a photo of the girl in time though and the story never got in. We still got £75 each for the ‘tip and info’ though.
Last anyone heard of the teacher he was doing those door-to-door vacuum cleaner demonstrations.”
You nasty, sad little person!
LondonLad - k and raincoaster are right; don’t brew resentment, report her. She was out of order, stick up for yourself, you don’t have to take that in the workplace any more, that’s the point, it’s your choice.
Steven_L - yes, LondonLad was right, that bloke you told us about was a “nasty, sad little person”. Serves him right!
‘You nasty, sad little person’ (LondonLad)
It probably was a bit out of order wasn’t it, but I was a bit off the rails at 17.
Oh, wrong end of the stick obviously but i still stand by that thought. I’ve known of many a good-looking married man who preys on stupid young girls and it’s wrong. I think the attitude towards this carries over to the issue of rape and the rape laws have been amended recently I understand. There seems to be an urban myth that a man can’t help himself and so should be forgiven for.. helping himself. That’s not true. A man can and does make a choice.
Jaq said: “Citation needed but I’m sure I read somewhere that the fact is that men make up 98% of sex offenders. Given that Fact Boris, as a mother I think a little discrimination totally justified.”
You clearly value statistics. As a mother, could you quote me the ratio of the number of sexual assaults by adult men on children who were not known to them on British Airways flights to the total number of passenger journeys flown by such men. You can add in other airlines if it helps your case. That’ll give us some idea of the risk, don’t you think.
Thank you very much.
How disappointing that a debate around an article that raises an important point has degenerated into a petty, steriotypical battle of the sexes argument.
I studied maths, physics and chemistry A-levels followed by a masters in Applied maths. I never in any institution encountered any sexism. A physics teacher did ask why I thought more girls didn’t study a-level physics, as the ones in his class achieved high grades and he wanted to encourage more. I replied that it was only chosen by girls who were genuinely interested in, or excelled in, the subject and not those that were not sure what to study. But boys may be more likely to study physics when they are not sure what they wish to study. So if you managed to encourage more girls to study the subject, you’d probably get a wider spectrum of achivement amoungst them, as already existed amongst the boys. Personally, I don’t see the point in trying to encourage more people to study a subject just to make up numbers. If those girls who want to take it can (as is the case) then surely that is enough, if more boys like the subject than girls, so what?!
Simillarly all women shortlists are sexist. I would not want ever to feel I had only got a position because half the competition was eliminated. I would want to know I had got it as I was most suitable for the job. Real equality is being considered on a level playing field, not one that assumes you need an unfair helping hand. I would go so far as to say that an all women short list would put me off applying for a post. As long as anyone can apply, that is enough, and if the majority who apply for a certain type of role are men, then it is not odd that the majority who are sucessfull are men.
lastly, I agree that there is now an accepted sexism against men, whilst many women remain hypersensitive to percived predudice- it is most hypocritial, and as a woman I find it embarassing.
Eric Poad
Just because a person points out the idiotic nature of your rantings does not make them bitter. Ranting about how nasty all women are does.
I am with you too Jaq, just because a person can abuse his position does not mean he should. A teacher is in a position of extreme trust and is working with people who by their youth are more vunerable. An abuse of that trust (whether the teacher be male or female) means that the teacher should no longer be put in such a position. Perhaps when teachers start complaining that they are not allowed to be alone with their pupils they will blame the men and women who have in the past abused the trust of parents instead of accusing parents of over-zealous behaviour.
Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a lot more new names here than usual? hmm.
k said: “Perhaps when teachers start complaining that they are not allowed to be alone with their pupils they will blame the men and women who have in the past abused the trust of parents instead of accusing parents of over-zealous behaviour.”
Perhaps when over-zealous parents stop and consider what sort of world they are wishing for they’ll realise that tainting 50% of the adult population was a bit of a wrong move. And if some scruffy sod hoiks your children off to the bushes and a regiment of men ignore their screams, who are you going to blame then? The parks department for not cutting the bushes down?
k: “Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that there seems to be a lot more new names here than usual? hmm.”
Do say what you mean. Hmm
Bob Doney
If you read the comments preceding mine you will see that we were talking about teachers who have abused pupils. You will also see that I believe it is the teachers who abuse children (and again I will make the point that I refer to both men and women) who taint all teachers not the parents who are trying to stop their fifteen year old from being preyed upon.
Why is it when I say women should be able to get drunk and wear what they want without being raped I am told by certain men that women who do that are asking for trouble (i.e that all men are potential rapists), but when I say I cannot blame parents for being slightly over-zealous I am accused of being sexist? Then I am accused of having double standards.
Abc - Oh dear , do we all have to be serious then , I was rather enjoying the girls v boys stuff .
I must say I think Tayle has been attacked with disproportionate aggression . He has posted several times and , as I see it has an insight into victim culture that I rather agree with . Possibly not on this occasion.
I have been awed at the spectacle of normal men hauled out of their happy homes on the basis of new DNA evidence . They look like me , they seem unconcerned , but they have raped and killed . Colin Wilson`s history of crime charts the rise of the sex crime and sees it as a culturally specific phenomena . It may be tempting to dismiss paedophile hysteria as a media invention but I am not convinced . I suspect there is a real rise and it is mostly men . I will not be taking any chances . Tayle signalled that he sympathised with such concerns so I can’t see that he has said anything to justify such rage , in response . Not at all.
My sense of the current state of play between the sexes is that we are in a post feminist period . Amongst my friends there are beleaguered teams of two. They struggle to balance needing two incomes , child minders , guilt , interrupted careers ,vicious taxation and much more . Women have specific problems but so do men . I feel there is a lot more pragmatism than either feminism or sexism.
I think as men we have to show women some compassion .There can be little doubt that they have lost out in the chromosome stakes . As a man , you can run and jump better , drive competently , dress in the same ensemble for twenty years . Look good in it . Not care if you don’t . Grow hair in interesting places . Get to the toilet at theatres. Cast you eyes heavenward and cease to discuss “the matter” . Get out in ten minutes( unless you are waiting for woman )Have a few friends you like instead of a hundred you don`t . Be in to music( women can’t be in to anything). Get better with age and best of all….. Have sex with women
No wonder they envy us
I’m with Boris - and Ogden Nash - on this, children would be less in danger from the wiles of a stranger if their own kin and kith were more fun to be with.
Most of these vile attacks on children are carried out by their family and friends. So political correctness must have a motive other than child protection here. My guess is that this motive is largely stigmatisation of men.
Having said all that, on one, never to be forgotten, business trip, I was one of just 5 adult passengers on a shuddering turbo prop, flying from Paris on my way to a one croissant ville in the French back of beyond. The other passengers were a plane load of French children aged about 5-8 years old. I spent the entire nightmare flight either trying to cheer up the many enfants who cried for their mothers or holding sick bags. I would have given anything to be told I was not allowed to fly on that nightmare trip because I was an adult.
k: “Bob Doney is Eric Poad”
What, in the sense that Boris Johnson is Graham Norton?
Still looking forward to your explanation of “hmm [Ed: abbreviated, raincoaster]” …
Melissa, could you abbreviate Bob Doney’s M’s? They’re stretching the screen to the point where I have to scroll back and forth. [Ed: point noted and acted on raincoaster]
It’s too bad that such an interesting thread degenerated into “all feminists are this, all women are that” so quickly. I’m pleased it wasn’t reciprocated in the same spirit.
And, click and save this for posterity, I agree with newmania. We’re in a postfeminist stage of society now. Quotas have long since outlived their usefulness; it’s time for an intellectual market correction to bring about social change. If there aren’t a lot of men teaching science, that at least means there are a lot of women doing so, and presumably that sexism won’t be a negative factor on girls going through the school system now.
Boris has previously mentioned his fears that this might mean it’s a negative factor for boys, but that is for another thread…
Doney /Poad - Why are you so angry. Have you personally suffered at the hands of some woman or other ? You have to admit surely that taken all in all women are a good thing .K of all people is about the last person I would accuse of the sort of 1970s man hating you are railing against.( IMHO)
I agree that the airline’s policy is over the top. I’m afraid I have to disagree that paedophiles aren’t as numerous as feared. I live in a village of less than one hundred people, yet had one living just two houses away. He is now in jail but nobody suspected a thing before two neighbor boys came forward to report being molested. According to the national sex offender registry there is another one a few blocks away who was convicted for raping little girls (6 and 7 year olds). As a mum I consider these people to be a real threat and it’s my duty to protect my son and educate him to protect himself.
Regarding the male/female teacher ratio…three of my son’s eight teachers this year are men.
k: “If you read the comments preceding mine you will see that we were talking about teachers who have abused pupils. You will also see that I believe it is the teachers who abuse children (and again I will make the point that I refer to both men and women) who taint all teachers not the parents who are trying to stop their fifteen year old from being preyed upon.”
I did read your comment. I thought the thread was about over-regulation regarding child safety having the opposite effect of what’s intended.
“Why is it when I say women should be able to get drunk and wear what they want without being raped I am told by certain men that women who do that are asking for trouble (i.e that all men are potential rapists), but when I say I cannot blame parents for being slightly over-zealous I am accused of being sexist? Then I am accused of having double standards.”
I don’t know. My own view, irrelevant as it is to this topic, is that women should be able to wear and behave how they like without getting raped, but that in practice this is entirely unrealistic. I would imagine that thousands of women every week have sex without their consent under such circumstances. On the other hand as far as I’m aware there haven’t been thousands of children being sexually assaulted on British Airways flights. I’ve seen lots of TV programmes about child abuse, and none of the victims have ever said they were assaulted, or even groomed, on British Airways’s flights.
I will just reiterate my view that, over-zealous or not, the parents who fret about their children’s security to the extent of not enabling to function independently and intelligently are increasing the dangers to them, not lessening them. I have seen many situations where if a child had run away from a man trying to help them they would have been in greater peril.
“Melissa, could you abbreviate Bob Doney’s M’s?”
Sorry about the mmms. Please forgive me. I’m a relative stranger here. I thought I only had a few mmms in my raincoat pocket, but they all came tumbling out.
I blame the site’s programmer. Or the parks department.
I `m quitting whilst(briefly) ahead. I do hope that tayle will not be put off contributing. His views on Iraq were one of the best posts I have ever seen.
( This screen is wierd?)
Cheerio
newmania: “Doney /Poad”
Watch my lips. Doney <> Poad. Now stop being silly.
“Why are you so angry.”
I’m not.
“Have you personally suffered at the hands of some woman or other?”
It’s absolutely none of your business.
“You have to admit surely that taken all in all women are a good thing”
I can think of examples for and against this proposition. But as it’s not the subject under discussion I don’t think I’ll take your bait. I might be accused again of Poad-like tendencies.
“K of all people is about the last person I would accuse of the sort of 1970s man hating you are railing against”
Is that what I’m doing? Could you give me an example of where I’ve done that?
Ah, OK. I didn’t miss it. The site’s editing program doesn’t pick up the “less than” symbol.
Try again:
I’m not Eric Poad. Got it now?
I think you will find that between a quarter to one third of paedophiles are females as suggested by the Manchester Evening News which published details about the conviction of a woman care worker for children suffering mental illness who was sexually assaulting several of the boys.
[quote] ‘It is only during the last 10 to 12 years that the
establishment has begun to seriously study the extent of female
paedophilia, but the results of so far limited research shows it is
much more widespread than thought, suggesting women could be responsible
for a quarter of all sex abuse involving under 16s. Some estimates are
higher. ‘[/quote]
There have been several articles in the press about women seducing young boys and getting off very leniently ie. a Canadian teacher working in the UK was sent back to Canada.
Another woman seduced a schoolboy of 13 and then later in life when she found he run a plumbing business, set the child support agency on him.
I only discovered this blog as I searched for Boris’s article because it is of interest to me, so I think the ‘gang member’ who suddenly appears suspicious because there are new posters may be suffering from paranoia. As a divorced father I am concerned about my daughters welfare and safety in what is the most dangerous situation for sexual and fatal child abuse - living in a household with a mother who is cohabiting with a boyfriend. Mothers boyfriends have more rights to children than their biological father. ( see Broken Homes & Battered Children by Robert Whelan ) Also CIVITAS quotes similar as does Heritage Organisation in the US.
Feminism is a con which has persuaded those dumb enough to believe ‘freedom of the home’ was being chained to the kitchen sink. They are now chained to office desks from 9 ’till 5 with stressful rush hour travel in between. Both parents working now means they have three jobs between two parents - a day job each plus maintaining a home too… and looking after the lodgers, known as children, when they have time.
Conned into a career, women feel the need to go to university. They leave university with a large debt ( student loan ) and marry a fellow ex student with a huge debt to pay back. Add the debt of a mortgage and these careerists cannot afford not to work which in turn means they don’t have time to nurture their children. Instead of enjoying parenthood, they dump life’s treasures to imprint on strangers.
It is no wonder society is falling apart.
Raincoats used to have epaulet’s on the shoulders, but my impression from some of the ’superior’ messages above, it would appear they now have chips on their shoulders!
Newmania - don’t run away now! Tuh! I was just about to take you to task for the accusation that I have somehow frightened Tayles. I have in fact invited him to “start writing” and reminded him that we welcome his comments, all of them. And I did it with some humour so you may run away Newmania but you can’t hide. I will chase you! (but judging by the time Tayles left us he could well have gone out for the evening - or be spending it covered in the female of his choice??)
Dove - you make a mistake in citing speculation as fact. You state that “I think you will find that between a quarter to one third..etc” when the quote you kindly supplied states that only limited research has been undertaken that suggests women could be abusing more than first thought. But the thing I found most interesting in your post, well two things actually, the first was the mental illness link to paedophilia - you mentioned “the conviction of a woman care worker for children suffering mental illness who was sexually assaulting several of the boys” I think this point most important in that the care and supervision of the mentally ill has suffered under this government (and it was never that good) If someone is mentally ill and a danger to themselves or the public but no treatment can be given to them, they are beyond help, then they are mostly delivered into the care of the community nowadays, ie. let out and ignored.
The other point, which I touched on in my first post, is that you rightly pointed out the vulnerability of lone females, especially those caring for children. I focus on the vulnerability of the female (rather than the obvious vulnerability of the child) because the first thing a predator will do is strike up a relationship with the mother and if she feels something is not quite right he will accuse her of being paedo-hysteric.
Dove, I’m generally quite peaceable until attacked, and when someone ceases to react to me as an individual and lumps me into a category in which I don’t belong, I stick up for myself. If this doesn’t fit your idea of femininity, I suggest you expand it.
There have been several articles in the press about women seducing young boys and getting off very leniently (Dove)
Quite rightly too. All the men I know would have just loved to have been seduced by older women in their boyhood. I know I certainly would have, and I was already strongly attracted to women by the age of 10. If nothing else, it would have made adolescence a far less gruelling experience.
And anyway is seduction a form of ‘abuse’? If so, then it must also be abuse when a adult man seduces a woman, or vice versa. But it seems to me that abuse only takes place when one party does not want or does not consent to some sexual act (or any act). I do not see what abuse takes place if both parties fully consent.
This raises questions about the distinction between children and adults. At present some entirely arbitrary age (e.g. 16) is said to mark the division. And yet it is manifestly obvious that both boys and girls are frequently sexually adult long before this age. Whether this is due to improved nutrition or public health, or because of our highly sexualized culture, I do not know. What it does mean, however, is that as children mature earlier into sexual adulthood, and yet the legal age of consent remains unchanged, then there is bound to be an automatic increase in cases of ‘child abuse’ or ’statutory rape’. Just as there would be if, for example, the legal age of consent was raised to 25.
I think the use of a fixed, arbitrary, legal age of consent should be abolished, and instead children should be assessed throughout their education for their sexual development and sophistication in exactly the same way as they are assessed for their ability to read and write. Some children will obviously ‘pass’ earlier than others. And some may never ‘pass’ at all.
But I suspect that there are a some people for whom more or less any sexual activity whatsoever, consenting or otherwise, is ‘abuse’. Such people simply hate sex, and they are always omnipresent in society, forever seeking to criminalise everything they possibly can.
I might add that I know several women who have engaged in ’sexual tourism’, and headed off to North Africa in search of teenage boys.
One of them gave me a quite vivid account of her several exploits, one of which ended with her fleeing the country when she found a boy’s parents were looking for her.
I asked her what she found so attractive about her sexual tourism, and she replied that it was “total control”. She decided what would and wouldn’t happen. By contrast, sexual relationships with adult men were, in her view, far too complicated.
Did I think she was going to North Africa and sexually abusing boys? No. Not at all. I took it as read that the boys, whatever their ages, were consenting partners.
And it seems that the Islamic countries she was visiting took a pretty relaxed attitude to such female sexual tourism. I once read an Muslim cleric’s remarks upon the practice. He said that it really didn’t matter if foreign women came looking for sexual adventures. But, he added, “We cannot possibly allow our own women to behave in such a manner.” A very nice example of a double standard, if ever I saw one.
idlex, I don’t have children, but if I did I would certainly consider “not going to [Ed: inappropriate] the children” a prerequisite for any teacher. In fact, I consider it so now. It’s certainly not as if there are a shortage of willing adults.
As well, anyone who’s had an intimate relationship knows how difficult it can be to be objective. This is hardwired into us, and pretty universal. In the context of a competitive academic environment, you can see that a teacher having a sexual relationship with one student could negatively affect the future chances of the rest of the class, or, if the teacher overcompensates in an attempt to be fair, could hurt that one student’s chances to get into the university of their choice.
So, for moral, societal, and educational reasons, I say that not [Ed: unsuitable language] the children is a reasonable minimum standard for teachers.
DONEY-If you subract the Poad from the Doney then you get a different impression. The rest is redundant.
Got it? Hmmmm etc.
Newmania - thanks for the words of support in my absence.
Jaq - Yes, I did go out last night. Very nice it was too. It just occurred to me that I needn’t go into any greater depth on my generalisations, because they were not in fact generalisations. My talk of the bigger picture was a referece to something I had described earlier in the same post, which was “The truth is that the number of child attacks in this country is remarkably low and has been for decades. The very reason that they receive such conspicuous news coverage is that they are so rare. Although individual cases are tragic, there is no reason to believe that the draconian regulation that the government and public agencies has introduced will do anything to protect a single child. All they have succeeded in doing is poisoning informal relationships between adults and children.”
In case that is too vague for you still, allow me to elucidate. Despite anecdotal experiences of remembering a pervert who lived up the road, or knowing someone who was abused, we can’t possibly know enough people (or paedophiles) to make a rational assessment of the risk these people pose. And while it may be true that 98% of sex offenders are men, it doesn’t follow that 98% of men are sex offenders. That is perverse logic and vaguely offensive.
In my experience, people choose to see the world in a way that legitimises their own defining characteristics. If you get a kick out of being a caring person, then you probably choose to see the world as a troubled place, full of danger, and people as fundamentally vulnerable. If this version of the world is true, then your paranoia is justified and your sympathy is much-needed. In the face of hard facts, this subjectified view of the world should crumble, but it is propped up by the weary ethos of non-judgmentalism. This tells us that no opinion is more valid than another and that what we think is right in its own way. This gives people a licence to believe what they like, regardless of the facts. The genuine risk posed by a situation becomes irrelevant; it’s how people perceive it that now matters. This goes some way towards explaining the risk-averse culture we have today.
I’d love to go into this in greater detail, but work beckons. And incidentally, feel free to insult me. No one has the right not to be offended.
Some figures:
The vast majority of the children in the study (82%) “were suspected of being abused by a man or a woman who was, or had been, in a heterosexual relationship with a relative of the child.” And the review concluded that in this sample, “a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than [the risk of being molested] by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual.” Jenny, C., & Roesler, T. A. (1994).
1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes one study that determined that 90 percent of pedophiles are men, and that 98 percent of these individuals are heterosexual. Holmes, W.C. and Slap, G.B. (1998). “Sexual Abuse of Boys: Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae and Management.” Journal of the American Medical Association. 280 (21): 1855-1862.
More numbers, this time pederast-specific.
The average number of boys a pedophile claims to molest is between 120-135, prior to incarceration. (Men who molest girls select fewer victims, average between 73-85.) With the high number of pedophiles in prison, and out, registered as sex offenders; the equation of males having been touched is either incorrect or astronomically quiet. In the state of Texas for example, 11,000 men were in prison during the 1990s for sexual assault. It is believed that 93-96 percent of them were molested as boys.
If those 11,000 men represent pedophile victims, in other words they admitted to being molested as children, even though they acted out as adults, they are part of 120-135 per pedophile. They are within a group of about 1,300,000 male victims in Texas — a snapshot in time.
How disappointing that a debate around an article that raises an important point has degenerated into a petty, steriotypical battle of the sexes argument.
I studied maths, physics and chemistry A-levels followed by a masters in Applied maths. I never in any institution encountered any sexism. A physics teacher did ask why I thought more girls didn’t study a-level physics, as the ones in his class achieved high grades and he wanted to encourage more. I replied that it was only chosen by girls who were genuinely interested in, or excelled in, the subject and not those that were not sure what to study. But boys may be more likely to study physics when they are not sure what they wish to study. So if you managed to encourage more girls to study the subject, you’d probably get a wider spectrum of achivement amoungst them, as already existed amongst the boys. Personally, I don’t see the point in trying to encourage more people to study a subject just to make up numbers. If those girls who want to take it can (as is the case) then surely that is enough, if more boys like the subject than girls, so what?!
Simillarly all women shortlists are sexist. I would not want ever to feel I had only got a position because half the competition was eliminated. I would want to know I had got it as I was most suitable for the job. Real equality is being considered on a level playing field, not one that assumes you need an unfair helping hand. I would go so far as to say that an all women short list would put me off applying for a post. As long as anyone can apply, that is enough, and if the majority who apply for a certain type of role are men, then it is not odd that the majority who are sucessfull are men.
lastly, I agree that there is now an accepted sexism against men, whilst many women remain hypersensitive to percived predudice- it is most hypocritial, and as a woman I find it embarassing.
THE SANEST POST I HAVE READ HERE. BANG ON THE BUTTON.
Back to being a lurker.
Some figures:
The vast majority of the children in the study (82%) “were suspected of being abused by a man or a woman who was, or had been, in a heterosexual relationship with a relative of the child.” And the review concluded that in this sample, “a child’s risk of being molested by his or her relative’s heterosexual partner is over 100 times greater than [the risk of being molested] by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual.” Jenny, C., & Roesler, T. A. (1994).
1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association notes one study that determined that 90 percent of pedophiles are men, and that 98 percent of these individuals are heterosexual. Holmes, W.C. and Slap, G.B. (1998). “Sexual Abuse of Boys: Definition, Prevalence, Correlates, Sequelae and Management.” Journal of the American Medical Association. 280 (21): 1855-1862.
With all due respect to the authors of this, it is highly misleading. If hardly anyone is studying female sex offenders with respect to their attacks on children, then how can anyone say, “90 percent of pedophiles are men” I suspect this means that 90% of studied paedophiles are men which is a whole different ball game. Am I making sense here?
Not really. The studies looked at who actually committed child sexual abuse; when you say “hardly anybody studied female sex offenders” you are not talking about this study; it did.
Do you have to be an intellectual with perfect typing skills and spelling to take part in this forum? I am worried I might express a “man in the street” opinion and get my head bitten off for being a “plebe.” At the risk of doing that. I just want to say that I think you people have been very harsh on poor old Poad. I think he made some very good points and was shot at because they raised some uncomfortable feelings in those that read them.
I stumbled here out of the ether because I thought Boris had written a mighty fine article and I enjoyed it. Just wanted to say thanks Boris.
Then I started to read the posts.
Oh dear. Bullying, whether in print or real life, is never pretty to see.
Personally, I have found that when someone takes a view that is opposite mine, or even on a different topic from the one that I wish to discuss, it is always worth listening to that person. Engaging with them. Understanding why they hold their view. That is what discussion is all about.
If they are angry about something they see as unjust, or hurtful to them, then I listen ever more closely. I encourage them to tell me why they are angry. This tells them that I am not afraid of their anger and I am not judging them for being angry. They may have a perfect right to feel as they do. Because their experience is not mine, does not make their experience less valid. I do not judge them based on what school they went too or background they come from, because, in the end, I know that those who place great store in those things are the very same people failing to solve our crime issues and leading us to war in strange lands we should keep away from. Therefore, the level of education does not bring wisdom. Wisdom is not the gaining of knowledge but the application of knowledge. I have met people who have almost never been to school, but who have a rich vein of wisdom.
In my years of searching the Internet and talking on many boards like this one, I have learned that often a clique builds up. Made up of people who have hung around and chatted together, sometimes for years. The get to know each other very well. They understand each other, often to great depth. Then, when someone comes along who thinks differently and has another perspective on life, it ruffles their feathers. Makes them feel as if their party has been gate-crashed. The urge to chase off the interlopers overcomes their need for civilised thinking about the strangers point of view. It becomes a textual equivalent of xenophobia.
By the way. Did you realise where the name Eric Poad comes from? It raised a smile on my wizened old face to hear (read) that name again. Steve Wright (of Radio One fame a few years ago) would have loved it. Perhaps Eric Poad was smarter and more subtle than you have given him credit for?
[Runs back to his trench and places steel helmet on his head to protect him from the shrapnel that may come for daring to stick up for Poad.]
Not really. The studies looked at who actually committed child sexual abuse; when you say “hardly anybody studied female sex offenders” you are not talking about this study; it did.
Where can I get hold of this study?
Longstreet and Abc , I must say I felt a bit guilty about moving swiftly on . Abc has an interesting perspective, but she does not speak on behalf of women with any special authority. . She knows a little more about the experience of women than I do , but not much . I do not speak on behalf men. I wouldn’t be quite so bowled over by point of view that is exceedingly unusual myself .
(People are always pretending they speak on behalf of
“There are all sorts of reasons why the…”
Tautology!!!
Boris is going off the rails!!!
Call an ambulance.