Obsidian Potency 3.0
An Obsidian Potency PSA: All Men Aren't Predators.
posted Wednesday, 10 October 2007
"This is a public service announcement brought to you in part...by Obsidian Potency."
While I was an undergrad, I worked with at-risk youth and with young children. I had plans to be a social worker. But after trying it out as an unpaid volunteer in college and after spending some time working professionally in social services, I changed careers.
Here's one of the reasons why. It isn't the main reason, but it's definitely one of them. Of course, these attitudes lead to the scenarios described in this article.
I think about these things when I'm out with my niece alone. Fortunately, she is now just old enough that I don't have to worry about this stuff as much. But before, during the occasional tantrums she threw, I would wonder how people
looked at us funny. It's sad, because I think little kids can be fun. And parents always say kids need lots of affection.
It seems that advice only applies as long as you're not a guy. No, not "it seems." I KNOW that adult-child interactions aren't viewed the same way when the adult is a man. As a result, I usually don't go within reach of kids whose parents I don't know well. And it's a shame, isn't it? Children need male role models. They need to grow accustomed to interacting with grown men as kids - it's not like they can avoid it forever. But as a result of ad campaigns sensationalizing male abuse (while virtually ignoring female abuse), the connection between men and children has been mostly severed.
The justifications for the offensive ads run by groups like the Virginia Department of Health (viewable in this article) sound eerily similar to justifications for other types of profiling that American society has already determined to be unacceptable. Isn't this similar to assuming all black men are criminals, or that all Muslims are terrorists /terrorist sympathizers?
You might say the percentage of male predators vs. female ones is overwhelming compared with the black male crime rate relative to other "races." Fine then: where's the percentage threshold where it's acceptable to broadcast blanket negative messages about an entire group of people? 65%? 75%? Just let us know, powers-that-be, so we can figure out which groups we can get away with stereotyping in mixed company and in the media. Thanks.
What would happen if a neighborhood watch program ran an ad using a suspicious-looking black male as a potential criminal? Or if a "see something, say something" ad used an Asian-looking person as an example of something suspicious? People would be up in arms.
But when it comes to typecasting men as predators, we grow silent. We don't want to question the John Walshes of the world, who use analogies like "What dog is more likely to bite and hurt you? The Doberman, not the poodle." So now it's okay to compare men to dogs? If this was said about a "racial," ethnic or religious group, it would not be tolerated. Yet John Walsh feels comfortable saying it about all men. Talk about self-hate, Mr. Walsh.
How can society pursue deadbeat dads and encourage all men to take responsibility for their own children when any man's relationship with any child -- even their own -- can seemingly be called into question by anyone at any time? How are men supposed to cope with these conflicting messages?
Yes, most child molesters are men...but the vast majority of men aren't child molesters. Sadly, since it's much easier to measure the cost of abuse than it is to measure the cost of phasing men out of young children's lives, American society has deemed this male-child disconnect as a tolerable cost for "safety."
While I was an undergrad, I worked with at-risk youth and with young children. I had plans to be a social worker. But after trying it out as an unpaid volunteer in college and after spending some time working professionally in social services, I changed careers.
Here's one of the reasons why. It isn't the main reason, but it's definitely one of them. Of course, these attitudes lead to the scenarios described in this article.
I think about these things when I'm out with my niece alone. Fortunately, she is now just old enough that I don't have to worry about this stuff as much. But before, during the occasional tantrums she threw, I would wonder how people
looked at us funny. It's sad, because I think little kids can be fun. And parents always say kids need lots of affection.
It seems that advice only applies as long as you're not a guy. No, not "it seems." I KNOW that adult-child interactions aren't viewed the same way when the adult is a man. As a result, I usually don't go within reach of kids whose parents I don't know well. And it's a shame, isn't it? Children need male role models. They need to grow accustomed to interacting with grown men as kids - it's not like they can avoid it forever. But as a result of ad campaigns sensationalizing male abuse (while virtually ignoring female abuse), the connection between men and children has been mostly severed.
The justifications for the offensive ads run by groups like the Virginia Department of Health (viewable in this article) sound eerily similar to justifications for other types of profiling that American society has already determined to be unacceptable. Isn't this similar to assuming all black men are criminals, or that all Muslims are terrorists /terrorist sympathizers?
You might say the percentage of male predators vs. female ones is overwhelming compared with the black male crime rate relative to other "races." Fine then: where's the percentage threshold where it's acceptable to broadcast blanket negative messages about an entire group of people? 65%? 75%? Just let us know, powers-that-be, so we can figure out which groups we can get away with stereotyping in mixed company and in the media. Thanks.
What would happen if a neighborhood watch program ran an ad using a suspicious-looking black male as a potential criminal? Or if a "see something, say something" ad used an Asian-looking person as an example of something suspicious? People would be up in arms.
But when it comes to typecasting men as predators, we grow silent. We don't want to question the John Walshes of the world, who use analogies like "What dog is more likely to bite and hurt you? The Doberman, not the poodle." So now it's okay to compare men to dogs? If this was said about a "racial," ethnic or religious group, it would not be tolerated. Yet John Walsh feels comfortable saying it about all men. Talk about self-hate, Mr. Walsh.
How can society pursue deadbeat dads and encourage all men to take responsibility for their own children when any man's relationship with any child -- even their own -- can seemingly be called into question by anyone at any time? How are men supposed to cope with these conflicting messages?
Yes, most child molesters are men...but the vast majority of men aren't child molesters. Sadly, since it's much easier to measure the cost of abuse than it is to measure the cost of phasing men out of young children's lives, American society has deemed this male-child disconnect as a tolerable cost for "safety."
Want to read comments, or have something to say? Bring it. (4)
Obsidian Hit Counter
Total: 297,451
since: 18 Oct 2004
since: 18 Oct 2004