ESSAY: Empowerment vs. Activism

[aoshi]

I think IT is a fine job for man or woman, providing they actually know what they are doing. I've seen men and women hopless at their jobs....maybe it's down to bad training these days? :/

I did not imply that men aren't suitable for IT. And about people not good at their jobs, I'd rather do my job and make sure no one else points a finger at me and also drives a guilty conscience what if accidentally i make a mistake and someone calls me 'hopeless' for it. I have had superiors, out of 10 things, i get 9 things perfect and judge me furiously for that 1 thing(which is not critical) that went accidental.So I'd rather not judge people cuz I may not be in the same exact position as theirs.

 

[Loopy]

I did not imply that men aren't suitable for IT. And about people not good at their jobs, I'd rather do my job and make sure no one else points a finger at me and also drives a guilty conscience what if accidentally i make a mistake and someone calls me 'hopeless' for it. I have had superiors, out of 10 things, i get 9 things perfect and judge me furiously for that 1 thing(which is not critical) that went accidental.So I'd rather not judge people cuz I may not be in the same exact position as theirs.

I wasn't implying that you were implying men were unsuitable for IT....was I? Did I come off wrong?

True, it's best to do your job well and avoid blame...what gets me is when jobs require teams to work...what if you have a lousy team member...I hate that kind of situation. >_<

 

[aoshi]

I wasn't implying that you were implying men were unsuitable for IT....was I? Did I come off wrong?

No, You didn't.

True, it's best to do your job well and avoid blame...what gets me is when jobs require teams to work...what if you have a lousy team member...I hate that kind of situation. >_<

While that is one end of the spectrum, I hate it when responsibilities aren't equally shared. Say there are 2 engineers, one guy works on the code and the other guy works on data gathering(both are engineers mind you), the guy who works on code thinks he is superior and refuses data gathering when roles are reversed. Or when an engineer works a lot on data gathering and wants to work on code, He does not get to work on it(What the heck?He is a qualified engineer :/ ).

 

[Loopy]

No, You didn't.

While that is one end of the spectrum, I hate it when responsibilities aren't equally shared. Say there are 2 engineers, one guy works on the code and the other guy works on data gathering(both are engineers mind you), the guy who works on code thinks he is superior and refuses data gathering when roles are reversed. Or when an engineer works a lot on data gathering and wants to work on code, He does not get to work on it(What the heck?He is a qualified engineer :/ ).

Good point. The other end is equally bad, especially if one person dumps all the work on another person, or refuses to do a task. It's a difficult situation.

 

[Angel]

Enter the misogynist....


Here's how I define equality: all men, women, children, whatever their health, social and/or economic status are to be regarded as equal in terms of being living, breathing human beings with needs that must be met in order to live. And for me, that's where the definition ends because the black and white of it finishes there. Everything beyond that insanely simple definition is far too complex to generalise and cover with blanket responses.

 

[Loopy]

Enter the misogynist....

I don't think your statement is misogynistic....for me, a misogynist is someone who thinks women are only good to make babies and stay in the house, or a women beater or rapist.

Here's how I define equality: all men, women, children, whatever their health, social and/or economic status are to be regarded as equal in terms of being living, breathing human beings with needs that must be met in order to live. And for me, that's where the definition ends because the black and white of it finishes there. Everything beyond that insanely simple definition is far too complex to generalise and cover with blanket responses.

It's a shame the world isn't so simplistic as that...that people have to be prejutice towards someone because they don't have as much money, different gender, too old, too young, not neurotypical or allistic, different religion or sexuality....there's prejudice everywhere, and I don't see it going away any time soon.

The only positive is that we've mostly moved on from the days where women, gays and disabled were locked away in asylums and treated like animals. But there's still a long way to go with having a society where everyone is treated equally and has their needs met as an individual.

 

[Angel]

My definition is not so much how the world is, because it really isnt. Of course I know that. Its more me saying that what others see as equality, I do not. Being equal in my eyes is not the same as others see it. Men and women are equal because they are both humans. For me, that is where my definition ends.

Equality on the terms that most people see it is definitely rooted in an ideal world, which is fine, but sometimes the desire to create this ideal fails to see the reality and what it is that not only cauaes inequality but what could happen if the equality agenda is pursued with little to no thought given to the potential consequences.

 

[MephistoCarnival]

I don't think your statement is misogynistic....for me, a misogynist is someone who thinks women are only good to make babies and stay in the house, or a women beater or rapist.



It's a shame the world isn't so simplistic as that...that people have to be prejutice towards someone because they don't have as much money, different gender, too old, too young, not neurotypical or allistic, different religion or sexuality....there's prejudice everywhere, and I don't see it going away any time soon.

The only positive is that we've mostly moved on from the days where women, gays and disabled were locked away in asylums and treated like animals. But there's still a long way to go with having a society where everyone is treated equally and has their needs met as an individual.

You're so right Loopy.

There can be done some changes in the world we live in,but there will always exist in some form prejudices and also hating,sexism,rape,violence and such.Because that's how it is.
There will be people who won't think the same as others do and besides,these existed from the beginning of time,but they only changed their form to accomodate with the times we live in.

Not everyone can be tolerant,understanding and most of all,a good person.Where there's good,there's also bad and there always will be.

But if we try to change ourselves in better persons we can make a change,nobody said our generation is that easy,sure,there aren't World Wars anymore and such,but there's a lot of pressure from the society towards the people,especially the young ones,and even if they don't come in physical form,they surely come in psychological form.
And that can be as bad.

As its said :Without darkness you can't see light.

 

[MephistoCarnival]

Also,speaking of women in IT.
I've seen a lot of women working in IT stores and such.There's nothing wrong in it. Everybody has a brain that is capable of rational thinking.Depends on how you use it.
My own dad knows IT stuff and he teached me as well and I'm a female. It depends on each person's capability of thinking,memorizing etc.
Think of women that in the past succeeded in science that it considered a men's choice of job. Marie Curie,Rosalind Franklin and so many others. (Just by looking on a Wikipedia page there are tons of women in science and not only)

 

[Loopy]

There can be done some changes in the world we live in,but there will always exist in some form prejudices and also hating,sexism,rape,violence and such.Because that's how it is.
There will be people who won't think the same as others do and besides,these existed from the beginning of time,but they only changed their form to accomodate with the times we live in.

It's just human nature to be like that...and I guess if everyone was treated the same, it would create new problems. This might be a bad example, but I'll try it... what if everyone wanted to be a professional footballer or doctor...that just couldn't happen. I guess what I mean is that some people are naturally talented either physically for sport or academically. If someone does not have the ability, they shouldn't be treated like someone who does because it wouldn't be possible for them to do either of those things. So I guess it's a case of people should live within their capability?:/

As for people thinking differently, that should happen. There can be dangers to everyone thinking the same.There would be no new art, no invention because everyone would have the same idea of what art is, and no one would have the drive to be creative, and eveyone would just accept the world for what it is instead of trying something new. Plus, a hive mind is easy to control if you have eveyone thinking and believing the same thing.

Not everyone can be tolerant,understanding and most of all,a good person.Where there's good,there's also bad and there always will be.

As its said :Without darkness you can't see light.

Like you say, if all 'bad' was removed from the world...would people be able to appreciate the good when it happens? I guess it's just impossible for people to live like that because human nature is made up of different aspects, both good and bad. It would be a denial of human nature to suppress that part of themselves.

But if we try to change ourselves in better persons we can make a change,nobody said our generation is that easy,sure,there aren't World Wars anymore and such,but there's a lot of pressure from the society towards the people,especially the young ones,and even if they don't come in physical form,they surely come in psychological form.
And that can be as bad.

I don't think any generation has an easy life. Each new generation has to fix the mess that the previous generation made...and in turn a new problem is made for the next generation. That's how it goes.
With this current society, there's the bad economy, people turning to computers more instead of real people, consumerism, lousy politicians and war.
Sadly, it might take a few generations for this mess to be fixed...for me, I think that starts with education. If you teach the young, then hopefully they will turn into adults who can make a brighter future.

 

[MephistoCarnival]

I've seen a lot of hateful feminists especially on Tumblr.
Hateful especially towards men.As a whole.And this is contradicting and shameful.

Many don't realise the true concept of 'feminism' and use it as tool to be against something with all they can.And they claim themselves to be feminists.
You don't have to be violent or repulsive against men as long as they didn't do anything against you.

You can hate a man or a woman,but if you hate them because of their gender then we have a problem.Also,you don't have to hate them because they probably aren't feminists.Not everybody wants to or has time to.

I see tons of offended teenage girls saying that 'OH MY SCHOOL IS SO SEXIST BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T LET ME DRESS IN A SHORT SKIRT OR WITH MY BRA SHOWING'.

Seriously,do they think boys are allowed to come to school dressed in boxers or topless?
First of all,when you work somewhere or study somewhere there are some rules and dressing code. And it's applied to all the people who work there. You can't dress how you want as long as you work there.You dress how you want when you're in your free time.

My point with this it's that some people take this movement so far as to think that EVERYTHING is against them and their so proclaimed 'activism'. Especially people who have no idea of what this movement's truly goal.

They use it as an excuse to make themselves comfortable and to enrage others into believing they're right.

 

[MephistoCarnival]

It's just human nature to be like that...and I guess if everyone was treated the same, it would create new problems. This might be a bad example, but I'll try it... what if everyone wanted to be a professional footballer or doctor...that just couldn't happen. I guess what I mean is that some people are naturally talented either physically for sport or academically. If someone does not have the ability, they shouldn't be treated like someone who does because it wouldn't be possible for them to do either of those things. So I guess it's a case of people should live within their capability?:/

As for people thinking differently, that should happen. There can be dangers to everyone thinking the same.There would be no new art, no invention because everyone would have the same idea of what art is, and no one would have the drive to be creative, and eveyone would just accept the world for what it is instead of trying something new. Plus, a hive mind is easy to control if you have eveyone thinking and believing the same thing.



Like you say, if all 'bad' was removed from the world...would people be able to appreciate the good when it happens? I guess it's just impossible for people to live like that because human nature is made up of different aspects, both good and bad. It would be a denial of human nature to suppress that part of themselves.


I don't think any generation has an easy life. Each new generation has to fix the mess that the previous generation made...and in turn a new problem is made for the next generation. That's how it goes.
With this current society, there's the bad economy, people turning to computers more instead of real people, consumerism, lousy politicians and war.
Sadly, it might take a few generations for this mess to be fixed...for me, I think that starts with education. If you teach the young, then hopefully they will turn into adults who can make a brighter future.

I really like your way of thinking Loopy ^_^.

Agreed.
What if a person talented at painting or writing etc wants to become a professionist and also someone who doesn't have such talent also wants to become,because they're supposed to have equal rights? It wouldn't be fair.
Equality has it's own limit and it's used where there needs to be used,but not in all cases.

Yes.
Being in a perfect world with perfect people would be boring if you think about it.Think of movies or books.There always has to be a villain or an anti-hero to make the story interesting,someone to bring out the best in the protagonist and mostly to give an example of what happens to evil people and what shouldn't be done.

And if the world would be full of geniuses,then people would run out of ideas and inventions and there won't be any originality either. Something would stop at a point. Also if you take a look at the past times,every period of time had it's inventor in the right time.Someone who brought something new when it was needed and remained known in history books for it.

As you say,people wouldn't appreciate small gestures like for example,giving a gift to someone,because it would be a common thing to do so and it wouldn't have any meaning or importance.

Exactly. Education in very important for the youth. And I'm not only reffering to the importance or teaching them the quadratic equations but also basic life strategies.
Personally,besides the ordinary classes,I would teach kids how to behave,how to deal with different situations,how to become responsible and to cope alone with different life problems,how to think rationally and to discuss in public,to learn how to socialize with types of people.
And of course to help many of them get over self-harming,low self-esteem,anxiety and awkwardness because these seem to be the main problem within this generation which can lead sadly to suicide.

I wasn't taught these things in school, I had to figure them out myself.But of course, it's not really the school's obligation of doing so,but they spend most of their teenage years in school and that's the period in which they form a personality and principles and that's why I think teachers should teach them SUCH things,because they're seen as role-models after all.

But of course,reality beats fantasy and instead bullying is still practiced without anyone taking a stand against it etc.

 

[aoshi]

As its said :Without darkness you can't see light.

I think the need to feel equality wouldn't arise unless there is in-equality. Not all in-equality are discrimination and need equality. I believe only a discrimination or a sense of morality should give rise to need of equality.

 

[DanteStyle]

I don't think it's got anything to do with having boobs.

And the women you were talking about. I find it hard to believe they were unable to read an email. You know they don't represent all women working in IT. It's just a few.
There must be competent women out there or they would not be being employed. They don't employ people who would be a loss to the company. That's bad business sense.

If they know what they are doing, then let women work in IT. I don't see a problem with it so long as the men and women know what they are doing.
Just because a few women your man knows are not representing all women in IT. Just because a few women are lagging behind does not mean all women in IT are like this.

With that kind of thinking, you might as well say men shouldn't be allowed to teach because they're going to molest the children considering it has happened often enough for there to be that image of male teachers..

It's got EVERYTHING to do with boobs, and a pretty face. Confidence is everything and let's face it, if you're the average looking Jane, the pretty boob-face is more likely to get the job. This is how it used to work back home before I gave up trying to make a living there.

You find it hard to believe they can't read an email. You're not alone. It's bloody mind boggling how they just don't bother. Or if they do read it, they obviously don't understand it because they would reply with the exact questions that have already been answered in the email. Calling them dim would be an insult to dimness. And it's unfortunately not just a few. There are around five or six women working at our company - a company that is a big name and ought to have standards, considering they merged with HP - and they're all as dumb as .... y'know. They're employed because they play the social game. They can't actually do the work because they DON'T actually DO the work.

And as I said, I have yet to meet a woman who really does know what she's doing in IT. My mum in-law, I mentioned, she's a genius, and would do a far better job than all the women in this company put together, but even my mum in-law understands that it's just not a woman's business.

And men shouldn't be allowed into the early childhood roles. As teachers and principals for the senior kids, sure, yeah, fine. They want to get a guy in at our kindergarten to 'learn' and smut but I'm very uncomfortable with it. Men aren't cut out for teaching little ones, not unless they are a single parent with no female company. They lack that maternal instinct, which is what the little ones need. I'm not saying they can't do it. I'm just saying I personally am not at ease with the idea. Why would you bring a guy around 3 and 4 year olds who are just learning about the world and how to communicate properly? You know, they would be perfect targets for pedophiles because little children are easily manipulated and threatened and gullible. A lot of them probably won't even understand if they're molested.

I just, I don't like it. It's weird and puts me on edge.

 

[Loopy]

It's got EVERYTHING to do with boobs, and a pretty face. Confidence is everything and let's face it, if you're the average looking Jane, the pretty boob-face is more likely to get the job. This is how it used to work back home before I gave up trying to make a living there.

Maybe I'm too idealistic then...but I'd like to believe that people are hired based on capabilities and not how they look. However, good looking people do have intelligence too. Just because someone is attractive doesn't mean they're unintelligent. Some people are just lucky to be attractive and intelligent.
Sure, looks help with initial impressions such as job interviews, but if a person keeps screwing up their job, they won't last very long.

And men shouldn't be allowed into the early childhood roles. As teachers and principals for the senior kids, sure, yeah, fine. They want to get a guy in at our kindergarten to 'learn' and smut but I'm very uncomfortable with it. Men aren't cut out for teaching little ones, not unless they are a single parent with no female company.

You won't know until you give men a chance. It's unfair to say a man working with children is a potential paedophile.
I don't see the difference between a man being a principal or being a carer of small children. A principal is still working with children, so by your reasoning, he would still have the opportunity to molest children...maybe even more opportunity considering how much influence a principal can have.
I know you're worried about children, but I've seen more cases of women molesting, beating and killing children in their care than men. There was a very bad case a few years back with a woman who worked at a nursery and started a porn business using the children, and got away with it for months. Then there are cases of mother killing their children, and cases where female teachers have raped underage boys. So don't tell me all women have this magical 'maternal instinct' when they are capable of doing something as sick as that.
The worst of it is, these women get away with it because they claim mental ilness, post natal depression, a divorce or drinking problem. If it was a man, he'd be locked up. It's not fair to have this double standard. A crime is a crime and should not be judged differently based on the gender of the perpetrator.

They lack that maternal instinct, which is what the little ones need. I'm not saying they can't do it. I'm just saying I personally am not at ease with the idea.

To me, 'maternal instinct' is a myth. If that was real, all women would isntantly love their baby, there would be no cases of infanticide or toddlers being starved and beaten; there would be no women on internet forums or blogs saying they hate their baby, that they feel depressed and overwhelmed and that the baby was a mistake.
The idea of maternal instinct is just as damaging to women as it is to men.

Saying only women have maternal instinct pushes men away from being involved in their child's life. No wonder men don't want to interact with their children when there's this idea that only mothers truly know how to do it. Men need to be given a chance.
What appalls me is when a father goes to a baby group with his child, he's treated like a potential molestor. It's just wrong to treat a man like that, espeically if he wants to be involved with his childs life. I hear women complaining that men do nothing for their babies, then treat them like potential paedophiles when they do.
If it's going to be that attitude towards fathers who want to be involved, then mothers might as well throw the fathers out as soon as the baby is born just in case he turns out to be a molestor to other children or his own. Heck, you might as well just make a baby using a sperm bank if men are so useless and dangerous to babies and toddlers.

Why would you bring a guy around 3 and 4 year olds who are just learning about the world and how to communicate properly? You know, they would be perfect targets for pedophiles because little children are easily manipulated and threatened and gullible. A lot of them probably won't even understand if they're molested.

Why not let a man around a child? There is just as much chance of a female nursery nurse or teacher being a molestor as a male nurse.
Besides, boy children need male role models in nursery and school, especially with so many fathers leaving and abandoning their children....I don't know....you have one lot of people complaining men aren't men anymore because of the feminisation of education and call for more male teachers, while the other half brands all men as potential child molestors if they so much as express an interest in working with children.

You're right, children are manipulated, but women do that to them as well as men. The worst cases I have seen have been perpetrated by females because of the idea of 'maternal instinct'. People who hired them assume all women have this instinct, and as such, would never be molestors. Boy were they wrong....It's dangerous to assume all women know how to care for babies and toddlers. There are some sick women out there who get away with it because they are women and use this assumption that they have maternal instinct to their advantage. Because of that, you're left with devastated parents, feeling betrayed by the people they trusted their children to, and children who are going to be damaged, maybe for life.
So it's best not to assume that women know best, have maternal instinct, and will never molest children. You could be proven tragically wrong.

 

[Angel]

It's got EVERYTHING to do with boobs, and a pretty face. Confidence is everything and let's face it, if you're the average looking Jane, the pretty boob-face is more likely to get the job. This is how it used to work back home before I gave up trying to make a living there.

You find it hard to believe they can't read an email. You're not alone. It's bloody mind boggling how they just don't bother. Or if they do read it, they obviously don't understand it because they would reply with the exact questions that have already been answered in the email. Calling them dim would be an insult to dimness. And it's unfortunately not just a few. There are around five or six women working at our company - a company that is a big name and ought to have standards, considering they merged with HP - and they're all as dumb as .... y'know. They're employed because they play the social game. They can't actually do the work because they DON'T actually DO the work.

And as I said, I have yet to meet a woman who really does know what she's doing in IT. My mum in-law, I mentioned, she's a genius, and would do a far better job than all the women in this company put together, but even my mum in-law understands that it's just not a woman's business.

And men shouldn't be allowed into the early childhood roles. As teachers and principals for the senior kids, sure, yeah, fine. They want to get a guy in at our kindergarten to 'learn' and smut but I'm very uncomfortable with it. Men aren't cut out for teaching little ones, not unless they are a single parent with no female company. They lack that maternal instinct, which is what the little ones need. I'm not saying they can't do it. I'm just saying I personally am not at ease with the idea. Why would you bring a guy around 3 and 4 year olds who are just learning about the world and how to communicate properly? You know, they would be perfect targets for pedophiles because little children are easily manipulated and threatened and gullible. A lot of them probably won't even understand if they're molested.

I just, I don't like it. It's weird and puts me on edge.

I can understand where you are coming from and you are not alone as many women I know balk at the idea of a man being involved with small kids' education. However I would respectfully disagree and put forward that children NEED male input from day one as the male role is an essential part of their development. If you go into any childcare facility where men are present you will see that the kids respond very well to male teachers/carers and for somr kids, it may be the only male role model they get to see. In society's growing trend for alternative lifestyles, kids are being expoaed to all sorts of parental models which may or may not be right. In a childcare or school settig, there is consistency and stability which may well otherwise be absent at home. Little boys need men at an early age to show them how to be men. Little girls need to learn how men should treat them and how to respond in turn. Both need to learn how to respect men.

As for maternal instinct, well I dont know. I had none as a single parent other than the understanding that this baby required her needs meeting. Maybe that was my maternal instinct, as underdeveloped as it was? I think it needs to be learnt to a degree as people just arent prepared for the enormity of reaponsibilty that comes with parenthood. With regards to your own situation with the school wanting a guy hired, i think it may be worth voicing your concerns to the staff with the aim of having a conversation which would hopefully allay your fears and maybe even encourage you to give it a chamce. Im not saying you should drop your views at all - just maybe talk them over and see WHY they want a man employed there.

Sorry its all garbled here - on my phone and it sucks

 

[MephistoCarnival]

Maybe I'm too idealistic then...but I'd like to believe that people are hired based on capabilities and not how they look. However, good looking people do have intelligence too. Just because someone is attractive doesn't mean they're unintelligent. Some people are just lucky to be attractive and intelligent.
Sure, looks help with initial impressions such as job interviews, but if a person keeps screwing up their job, they won't last very long.

I don't want to sound too full of me or something like this,but many people told me I'm quite beautiful and at first I didn't want to seem like I'm a just pretty face,because after all beauty fades and you remain with your soul and intellect.

Beauty is just something you receive,it's a gift and if someone has it doesn't mean they're stupid or mindless.Many women and men are attractive but they're also intellegent. Maybe they want to prove you can be good looking but also have a sharp mind.
However we have to agree such people are favorized a little bit more because looks help.
But you can always look alright if you take care of yourself and your body.

Beauty can be a really big deal if you talk about models,actors and such,because their job is mostly to look good.
And it's alright because they're making a living based on it and use it to their advantage.

 

[darkslayer13]

Maybe I'm too idealistic then...but I'd like to believe that people are hired based on capabilities and not how they look. However, good looking people do have intelligence too. Just because someone is attractive doesn't mean they're unintelligent. Some people are just lucky to be attractive and intelligent.
Sure, looks help with initial impressions such as job interviews, but if a person keeps screwing up their job, they won't last very long.


You won't know until you give men a chance. It's unfair to say a man working with children is a potential paedophile.
I don't see the difference between a man being a principal or being a carer of small children. A principal is still working with children, so by your reasoning, he would still have the opportunity to molest children...maybe even more opportunity considering how much influence a principal can have.
I know you're worried about children, but I've seen more cases of women molesting, beating and killing children in their care than men. There was a very bad case a few years back with a woman who worked at a nursery and started a porn business using the children, and got away with it for months. Then there are cases of mother killing their children, and cases where female teachers have raped underage boys. So don't tell me all women have this magical 'maternal instinct' when they are capable of doing something as sick as that.
The worst of it is, these women get away with it because they claim mental ilness, post natal depression, a divorce or drinking problem. If it was a man, he'd be locked up. It's not fair to have this double standard. A crime is a crime and should not be judged differently based on the gender of the perpetrator.


To me, 'maternal instinct' is a myth. If that was real, all women would isntantly love their baby, there would be no cases of infanticide or toddlers being starved and beaten; there would be no women on internet forums or blogs saying they hate their baby, that they feel depressed and overwhelmed and that the baby was a mistake.
The idea of maternal instinct is just as damaging to women as it is to men.

Saying only women have maternal instinct pushes men away from being involved in their child's life. No wonder men don't want to interact with their children when there's this idea that only mothers truly know how to do it. Men need to be given a chance.
What appalls me is when a father goes to a baby group with his child, he's treated like a potential molestor. It's just wrong to treat a man like that, espeically if he wants to be involved with his childs life. I hear women complaining that men do nothing for their babies, then treat them like potential paedophiles when they do.
If it's going to be that attitude towards fathers who want to be involved, then mothers might as well throw the fathers out as soon as the baby is born just in case he turns out to be a molestor to other children or his own. Heck, you might as well just make a baby using a sperm bank if men are so useless and dangerous to babies and toddlers.


Why not let a man around a child? There is just as much chance of a female nursery nurse or teacher being a molestor as a male nurse.
Besides, boy children need male role models in nursery and school, especially with so many fathers leaving and abandoning their children....I don't know....you have one lot of people complaining men aren't men anymore because of the feminisation of education and call for more male teachers, while the other half brands all men as potential child molestors if they so much as express an interest in working with children.

You're right, children are manipulated, but women do that to them as well as men. The worst cases I have seen have been perpetrated by females because of the idea of 'maternal instinct'. People who hired them assume all women have this instinct, and as such, would never be molestors. Boy were they wrong....It's dangerous to assume all women know how to care for babies and toddlers. There are some sick women out there who get away with it because they are women and use this assumption that they have maternal instinct to their advantage. Because of that, you're left with devastated parents, feeling betrayed by the people they trusted their children to, and children who are going to be damaged, maybe for life.
So it's best not to assume that women know best, have maternal instinct, and will never molest children. You could be proven tragically wrong.

maternal instincts are an actual thing but humans are not driven solely by instinct so if a human has desires in conflict with instinct then instinct will have no effect. humans (male and female) are hardwired to protect and care for our children but some people are wired wrong and do something else instead.

the reason the term maternal instincts is applied only to women is that maternal refers to mothers and by definition men can't be mothers. of course the difference between mothers and fathers is small and mostly cultural so it doesn't really matter in this type of situation but it does affect the terminology.

 

[MephistoCarnival]

You won't know until you give men a chance. It's unfair to say a man working with children is a potential paedophile.
I don't see the difference between a man being a principal or being a carer of small children. A principal is still working with children, so by your reasoning, he would still have the opportunity to molest children...maybe even more opportunity considering how much influence a principal can have.
I know you're worried about children, but I've seen more cases of women molesting, beating and killing children in their care than men. There was a very bad case a few years back with a woman who worked at a nursery and started a porn business using the children, and got away with it for months. Then there are cases of mother killing their children, and cases where female teachers have raped underage boys. So don't tell me all women have this magical 'maternal instinct' when they are capable of doing something as sick as that.
The worst of it is, these women get away with it because they claim mental illness, post natal depression, a divorce or drinking problem. If it was a man, he'd be locked up. It's not fair to have this double standard. A crime is a crime and should not be judged differently based on the gender of the perpetrator.


Saying only women have maternal instinct pushes men away from being involved in their child's life. No wonder men don't want to interact with their children when there's this idea that only mothers truly know how to do it. Men need to be given a chance.
What appalls me is when a father goes to a baby group with his child, he's treated like a potential molestor. It's just wrong to treat a man like that, espeically if he wants to be involved with his childs life. I hear women complaining that men do nothing for their babies, then treat them like potential paedophiles when they do.
If it's going to be that attitude towards fathers who want to be involved, then mothers might as well throw the fathers out as soon as the baby is born just in case he turns out to be a molestor to other children or his own. Heck, you might as well just make a baby using a sperm bank if men are so useless and dangerous to babies and toddlers.


Why not let a man around a child? There is just as much chance of a female nursery nurse or teacher being a molestor as a male nurse.
Besides, boy children need male role models in nursery and school, especially with so many fathers leaving and abandoning their children....I don't know....you have one lot of people complaining men aren't men anymore because of the feminisation of education and call for more male teachers, while the other half brands all men as potential child molestors if they so much as express an interest in working with children.

Where this thing with 'men are all predators and potential molesters' has come from?:ermm:

There are a lot of women,at least from what I saw on the news,that kill their kids heartless.I mean I've seen cases of mothers leaving their children in toilets or throwing them in garbage containers. If this isn't horrible then I don't know what it is.
I'm still clueless why these women remain pregnant and give birth to children if they're just gonna kill them off in such a way. THIS is CRIMINAL instinct and not a mother's instinct.
I'm not going to talk about mothers who leave their children in orphanages because some of them had their reasons to do so and shouldn't be judged.
Yes,men can be drunk,drugged or anything else and represent a danger to the family,but there are women as well.There are so many different types of people that everything can be POSSIBLE.
Just like there can be women who can abuse men. But they still get away with it because it was undeniable,the man's fault.

And yes,I completely agree with you.
I love my mother,but being the fact she doesn't have time to talk to me from time to time,my dad does it and he's like a friend to me.
There are cases when women left their families and men took care of the children and raised them,in their way.And the kids grew up alright.
Though,nothing compares to a mother's presence most of all,because it's a natural and biological connection mothers have with their children. But if the mother leaves the child,then there is no excuse.

It is that wrong that a man can have a high parental instinct and want to be around their child? Is it wrong for a man to like being around kids taking care of them or educating them? No. This is the WRONG concept of society because they feel fear that if a man shows care more than a mother then he's sure a pedophile or something like this.

 

[aoshi]

Where this thing with 'men are all predators and potential molesters' has come from?:ermm:

Dat Feminist....

[Kidding ofcourse.....]