A BBC story from 2006? Stories from her friends? That's the best she's got? Would be nice to see a real article on this topic with actual analysis and data.
Of course it's stupid to label all men as possible predators, but there's another side to it: when a single pedophile can damage literally hundreds of children, who wouldn't have cause for concern?
The challenge is to find the level of concern that is reasonable and warranted, but this article can't be bothered with gray areas.
I think this is a situation where the votes this story is getting ARE the data.
I imagine many men voting this story up have noticed this trend in their own lives.
It's not hard data, but it shows a trend.
Heck just yesterday I rode an elevator up with 2 parents and their maybe 3 year old kid. The kid had been out in the rain and I made a comment directly to the child about the rain. The parents looked pissed just because I was talking to their kid.
I was just trying to make awkward elevator conversation a little less awkward.
I don't disagree with the notion that people overreact to men around kids, but I think the article itself is just a lazy appeal to emotion, and not very well argued.
The BBC story from 2006 seems to be the one older story in there, while at least the first two examples were in the news recently. If this is not enough to make it a "real article with actual analysis and data", most of the stuff that makes soccer moms uneasy to see their kids with random males wouldn't make the cut either.
It's extremely stupid to label all men as possible pedophile, and it's even really stupid to ascribe - to each and every pedophile - the faculty (let alone willingness) to be a predator.
Most children who are abused are abused by close relatives, so (as unpopular as that is) keep a close eye on other family members and your kids' buddies' parents, with a reasonable amount of concern. Teaching your children to fear all and every stranger, or any male adult, will deal considerable psychological damage to them; when a single well-meaning caregiver can damage literally hundreds of children in that way, who wouldn't have cause for concern?
While I agree about the lack of supporting evidence for her claims, nothing in the article suggested to me that she isn't concerned about pedophiles, nor do I think this article was really near a gray area at all.
>Of course it's stupid to label all men as possible predators, but there's another side to it: when a single pedophile can damage literally hundreds of children, who wouldn't have cause for concern?
Concern about pedophiles isn't the other side to this. It's related in so far as our concern about pedophiles has turned into a concern about men in general. The only way it could be the other side would be if the majority of pedophiles are men (probably true) AND if a significant amount of men are pedophiles (I don't think I need to cite any references to say this is absolutely false).
It's pretty easy to have concern about pedophiles without having concern about men working with children. In fact, we already have systems in place for this - all teachers are screened before they are hired, for example.
Of course it's stupid to label all men as possible predators, but there's another side to it: when a single pedophile can damage literally hundreds of children, who wouldn't have cause for concern?
The challenge is to find the level of concern that is reasonable and warranted, but this article can't be bothered with gray areas.