Profiling is OK, as Long as You Only Profile Males
September 15th, 2007 | by Craig |Agree or disagree, this article is worth a read. Here are the introductory grafs.
These days, if Rian Romoli accidentally bumps into a child, he quickly raises his hands above his shoulders. “I don’t want to give even the slightest indication that any inadvertent touching occurred,” says Mr. Romoli, an economist in La Cañada Flintridge, Calif.
Ted Wallis, a doctor in Austin, Texas, recently came upon a lost child in tears in a mall. His first instinct was to help, but he feared people might consider him a predator. He walked away. “Being male,” he explains, “I am guilty until proven innocent.”
In San Diego, retiree Ralph Castro says he won’t allow himself to be alone with a child — even in an elevator.
RTWT. It’s worth your time. If you’re so inclined, the author references an earlier article, which is also interesting.
6 Responses to “Profiling is OK, as Long as You Only Profile Males”
By dogette on Sep 15, 2007 | Reply
Sort of the same, but different: I know women (mothers) who are SERIOUSLY afraid to even raise their voice at their kid in public, for fear a member of the PC Police will call Child Protective Services on their asses.
By DMerriman on Sep 15, 2007 | Reply
Both sides have valid points - which only makes the situation that much more pathetic.
I’m not completely ‘hands-off’, but I make damn sure that it’s clear as hell that I’m only going to tickle a foot or ear or belly, and that the parent has plenty of time to say “I’d rather you didn’t”, if they’re so inclined.
By TMM on Sep 15, 2007 | Reply
So, how long has Glenn Reynolds been reading mtpolitics?
http://instapundit.com/archives2/009377.php
By Craig on Sep 16, 2007 | Reply
I did a bit of a *boggle* on that one. I was somewhat relieved to see that the advice columnist at least stuck up for the two-parent family.
I can remember when the attitude would have been exactly the opposite, though.
By Venomous Kate on Sep 17, 2007 | Reply
The part that gets me:
“People assume that all men ‘have the potential for violence and sexual aggressiveness,’ says Peter Stearns, a George Mason University professor who studies fear and anxiety.”
Helloooo?
It’s true. All men DO have that potential. So do ALL women.
The part that’s the double mind-blowing whammy is that the same people pushing gender parity are also perfectly willing to ascribe bad behavior to only one of the genders.
Sure, they can cite all sorts of figures about the number of males ultimately found responsible for perpetuating abuse. But how many of those situations turn out to be due to a mother’s lifestyle choices bringing her into contact with men who do the word “man” a disservice?
By Craig on Sep 18, 2007 | Reply
I do believe that an “amen” is in order here.