blokes, would you be willing to accept restrictions on your behaviour...

[Miss Caphat]

Maybe. My (rather limited experience) is that younger kids at least tend to be far more tactile and huggy than your average adult.

To be clear, though, in this particular case, it was the kids going 'my go!' at me after I'd done it with the two kids who were in my care at the time, and in a way that I hadn't expected at all.

tbh I'm not sure what I think about this. I think we're in danger of bringing up a generation of emotionally stunted children. Most of us (not all, of course) respond well to regular physical contact with others. Being hugged is a nice thing for most people most of the time. And even when it isn't nice, I'm not sure it's that damaging. I still remember being kissed by my very old granny when I was very little and going 'yuck', but I really don't think it damaged me.

I'm quite confused by a lot of this, tbh, which means that I err on the side of caution, which is not necessarily the best thing to do. And I reckon there's a lot like me in this regard.

Well, exactly. Err on the side of caution. That's all that really needs to be done.
It's hardly as extreme as it's being made out to be.

 

[fishfinger]

A bad man in the park:
View attachment 64211
This sort of thing must be stamped out.

That's a quite impressive ghillie suit - they'll never suspect anything

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Well, exactly. Err on the side of caution. That's all that really needs to be done.
It's hardly as extreme as it's being made out to be.

That's what I do, but I'm not sure it's really the right thing to do. It's the safest thing for me to do - safest for me, that is - but in the bigger picture, everyone erring on the side of caution may be leading to a situation where kids are starved of the affection they could be getting. Where we're talking about adults the children know greatly restricting their physical contact, I think we are in danger of producing neurotic adults at the end of the process.

 

[Orang Utan]

I think we already have

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If the adults are confused, how confused must the kids be?

I know you and I can trust you but I shouldn't hug you, but you still like me even though you don't want me to hug you, and it's ok to hug my family members but not you. And you're totally nice and safe, but you don't want to be left alone with me or to touch me.

Confusing.

 

[Orang Utan]

If the adults are confused, how confused must the kids be?

I know you and I can trust you but I shouldn't hug you, but you still like me even though you don't want me to hug you, and it's ok to hug my family members but not you. And you're totally nice and safe, but you don't want to be left alone with me or to touch me.

Confusing.

I'm not sure if kids are necessarily taught that. I don't think many parents are that confused. I dunno. Maybe they are.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm not sure if kids are necessarily taught that. I don't think many parents are that confused. I dunno. Maybe they are.

They pick up on what they see, whether it's intended or not, and will sense mixed messages. I wasn't really thinking about parents. I was thinking about teachers at school or in a playgroup or other situations where adults have children in their care, and where adults modify their behaviour in order to avoid any chance that another adult will take it the wrong way.

Someone spoke about the lack of male primary teachers earlier, and I'm sure the above is one of the reasons.

 

[Miss Caphat]

They pick up on what they see, whether it's intended or not, and will sense mixed messages. I wasn't really thinking about parents. I was thinking about teachers at school or in a playgroup or other situations where adults have children in their care, and where adults modify their behaviour in order to avoid any chance that another adult will take it the wrong way.

Someone spoke about the lack of male primary teachers earlier, and I'm sure the above is one of the reasons.

Ime, it's not a big issue. teachers and people who are caring for kids every day can still touch kids, in many cases their jobs would be impossible if they couldn't. It's more of a rule for people who deal with kids on a less consistent basis, and for all to modify their behavior slightly, and think before handling kids.
I just really think this gets blown out of proportion.
The general thing seems to be "don't be creepy/ handsy/rough" with kids, think before you touch a kid, etc. there are also rules in some situations about the number of adults that need to be in a room alone with a child (i.e. more than one) this is just good practice, for the kids and the adults, in the event that any incidents happen.

sadly, there never have been many male primary teachers to begin with. I used to work in a program with more (young) male teachers than females though. They did worry about these things but as I mentioned so did I, and there wasn't any apparent bias against them from parents or higher-ups.

 

[ShiftyBagLady]

My mother was a teacher and she regularly complained that she was not allowed to sit an ill or injured child on her lap, or return cuddles and stuff like that.

 

[ShiftyBagLady]

If the adults are confused, how confused must the kids be?

I know you and I can trust you but I shouldn't hug you, but you still like me even though you don't want me to hug you, and it's ok to hug my family members but not you. And you're totally nice and safe, but you don't want to be left alone with me or to touch me.

Confusing.

Add to that the gendered nature of it, that men in particular are treated with suspicion. It makes for a negative view of men as being less caring or emotionally available.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Surely the majority of rape etc happens in the home and among friends, relationships and aquaintances?

Yep.
"Stranger danger" is massively misleading, and often diverts the attention of parents from those it should be directed at - the vaguely creepy neighbour; uncle Bob; the "hands on" swimming instructor at the local poll, etc.

 

[frogwoman]

Yep.
"Stranger danger" is massively misleading, and often diverts the attention of parents from those it should be directed at - the vaguely creepy neighbour; uncle Bob; the "hands on" swimming instructor at the local poll, etc.

Also it's a bit patronising. I quite regularly walk home after dark and nothing has ever happened to me whereas I have been in very fucked up situations with people I knew.

 

[Falcon]

I think some interesting evidence is coming to light about this kind of thing. There have been many elaborate theories put forward as to why women live longer than men in most societies around the world. But possibly the simplest and most persuasive is that it's really just due to the kinds of stresses you're put under through your life.

To my mind, the greatest evidence of that stress, and the most remarkable counterfactual evidence of a general feminist assertion of a society which inherently benefits males, are suicide rates. In almost every society, men find living so unpleasant that they kill themselves in multiples of the female rate on a per-capita basis (reference).

This is not easy to reconcile with the simplistic (and political) assertion that society systematically favours the interests of males. A typical feminist defence of that core hypothesis is therefore the auxiliary hypothesis that it is the patriarchal society itself which makes men unhappy too (and women act violently). High male suicide rate, and female violence, are evidence that the feminist programme is not yet complete. Hmmm. Which makes even more remarkable the apparent correlation between the degree of elevation of the male adolescent suicide rate and the degree of feminism of the society in which he lives. For example, the adolescent male suicide rate in the UK was 6.5 deaths per 100,000 (against 1.8 female deaths). In Norway - a deeply feminist society - the equivalent is 15.3 deaths per 100,000.

And no wonder. Maleness is the new original sin. "Boys are stupid - throw rocks at them" is a funny tee-shirt. When they grow up, boys are nine times more likely to be imprisoned than girls for the same crime (with all of the socio-economic impairment that follows). He's immersed in a movie world in which boys are stupid, or violent, or both. He's immersed in an advertising world in which he's constantly rescued from his stupidity by his wise girlfriend (clever advertisers know very well who holds discretionary purchasing power in the household). He'll die sooner through occupational illness, or increasingly through state sponsored military violence, all the while apologising for the male characteristics that qualified him for those roles in the first place. He'll grow up in a paradigm in which discussions based on the premise that women and children are apparently safe only to the extent that the state constantly intervenes to prevent inherently violent men from acting on their uncontrollable impulses aren't even questionable.

Oh boy.

 

[killer b]

Oh boy.

 

[killer b]

Is it just me that wants to stab anyone who talks about 'the feminist programme'?

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Oh fuck off.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

He'll die sooner through occupational illness, or increasingly through state sponsored military violence, .

Decreasingly. A man's chances of dying a violent death at the hands of another man have decreased markedly across most of the world. And occupational illness is also on the decline, in the rich world at least. You missed off the other bits to my post where I spoke of the life expectancy gap narrowing in places where men and women now have far more similar stresses.

That said, recent 'austerity' may well be seeing older problems resurfacing. I'd be surprised if they weren't.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Is it just me that wants to stab anyone who talks about 'the feminist programme'?

That means you're a cultural marxist.

 

[Santino]

To my mind, the greatest evidence of that stress, and the most remarkable counterfactual evidence of a general feminist assertion of a society which inherently benefits males, are suicide rates. In almost every society, men find living so unpleasant that they kill themselves in multiples of the female rate on a per-capita basis (reference).

This is not easy to reconcile with the simplistic (and political) assertion that society systematically favours the interests of males. A typical feminist defence of that core hypothesis is therefore the auxiliary hypothesis that it is the patriarchal society itself which makes men unhappy too (and women act violently). High male suicide rate, and female violence, are evidence that the feminist programme is not yet complete. Hmmm. Which makes even more remarkable the apparent correlation between the degree of elevation of the male adolescent suicide rate and the degree of feminism of the society in which he lives. For example, the adolescent male suicide rate in the UK was 6.5 deaths per 100,000 (against 1.8 female deaths). In Norway - a deeply feminist society - the equivalent is 15.3 deaths per 100,000.

And no wonder. Maleness is the new original sin. "Boys are stupid - throw rocks at them" is a funny tee-shirt. When they grow up, boys are nine times more likely to be imprisoned than girls for the same crime (with all of the socio-economic impairment that follows). He's immersed in a movie world in which boys are stupid, or violent, or both. He's immersed in an advertising world in which he's constantly rescued from his stupidity by his wise girlfriend (clever advertisers know very well who holds discretionary purchasing power in the household). He'll die sooner through occupational illness, or increasingly through state sponsored military violence, all the while apologising for the male characteristics that qualified him for those roles in the first place. He'll grow up in a paradigm in which discussions based on the premise that women and children are apparently safe only to the extent that the state constantly intervenes to prevent inherently violent men from acting on their uncontrollable impulses aren't even questionable.

Oh boy.

Still got it.

 

[ddraig]

whilst that t shirt is stupid Falcon there are many many more "funny" ones that denigrate and degrade women for the lols

 

[Santino]

If someone continually posted about how Jews had a race programme to victimise other 'races', they'd be banned. Why is this bigot allowed to continue posting? FridgeMagnet

 

[killer b]

A hardline approach on urban to rampant miso freaks is a restriction I'd be happy to support, certainly.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If someone continually posted about how Jews had a race programme to victimise other 'races', they'd be banned. Why is this bigot allowed to continue posting? FridgeMagnet

I think that's a poor analogy. Falcon appears to believe that there is a feminist programme. Not all women are political feminists.

 

[Santino]

I think that's a poor analogy. Falcon appears to believe that there is a feminist programme. Not all women are political feminists.

What proportion of Jews would he have to believe were actively conspiring in order for us to correctly adjudge him to be anti-Semitic?

 

[killer b]

I'm not sure even the most ardent anti-semite would claim every jew is in on the whole protocols thing either.

 

[8ball]

For example, the adolescent male suicide rate in the UK was 6.5 deaths per 100,000 (against 1.8 female deaths). In Norway - a deeply feminist society - the equivalent is 15.3 deaths per 100,000.

Have you tried some very basic thinking and corrected that for latitude?
Perhaps try comparing Norway to Alaska instead.

And let's also see a breakdown of what 'degree of feminism' means.

 

[killer b]

I don't think there's any point engaging, really. Just get rid.

 

[toggle]

To my mind, the greatest evidence of that stress, and the most remarkable counterfactual evidence of a general feminist assertion of a society which inherently benefits males, are suicide rates. In almost every society, men find living so unpleasant that they kill themselves in multiples of the female rate on a per-capita basis (reference).

This is not easy to reconcile with the simplistic (and political) assertion that society systematically favours the interests of males. A typical feminist defence of that core hypothesis is therefore the auxiliary hypothesis that it is the patriarchal society itself which makes men unhappy too (and women act violently). High male suicide rate, and female violence, are evidence that the feminist programme is not yet complete. Hmmm. Which makes even more remarkable the apparent correlation between the degree of elevation of the male adolescent suicide rate and the degree of feminism of the society in which he lives. For example, the adolescent male suicide rate in the UK was 6.5 deaths per 100,000 (against 1.8 female deaths). In Norway - a deeply feminist society - the equivalent is 15.3 deaths per 100,000.


Oh boy.

so you can prove norway's suicide rate is directly and solely related to feminism?

 

[Santino]

If there is a difference in the way men and women behave in the present, it must be due to the complete victory of feminism, and not the millennia of patriarchy that crumbled so quickly and irretrievably in the last few years.

 

[DotCommunist]

oh great the Iron Eagle is back