Poll of the Day > How do you feel about male baby-sitters?

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

bro i'm just trying to tell everyone i'm one of the good ones!!!!!

That's what kills me. Obviously it's "not all men" and that's why I'm not reading adjl fellate himself over not being a predator. The issue is we don't know WHICH men and with a high prevalence of male on female violence, why are we supposed to be trusting and take the risk? It's not your body and mental health at risk, it's mine. So in effect it has to be all men until you personally prove otherwise.

Jen0125 posted...

And I don't trust men until there's a culture shift.

And herein lies the problem: You've created a false dichotomy between blindly trusting all men (which I agree is a terrible idea) and blindly distrusting all men. The middle ground (which is likely what you actually do when you're not talking philosophy on the Internet) is to default to distrust, but trust some conditionally, with criteria that are appropriate for the context. In the case of child care, that's a background check and other protective measures.

Jen0125 posted...

I would love for parents to give boys the emotional tools they need to not fall in predation.

One of those tools can be male babysitters, or daycare workers, or elementary teachers, all of which rely on giving men a chance to fill those roles instead of categorically screening them out. Very, very often, young boys only have their fathers and maybe their gym teachers and/or extracurricular sport coaches as adult male role models. Given that gym teachers and sport coaches tend to lean more toward the physical side of masculinity, that means it's pretty much just a crapshoot whether or not the kid gets a good dad (if he has any dad at all). Not only does having more men in ECE give more opportunities to get it right, men in ECE are generally going to be more emotionally intelligent than the average man (by virtue of being willing to go into "women's work"), further increasing the chance that young boys have a positive emotional influence in their formative years.

This is why I'm particularly bothered by this idea that men shouldn't be hired as babysitters because too many of them are predators: Hiring more male babysitters can be expected to help with the rate at which men become predators (at least, in theory. I'm not sure if this hypothesis has already been shot down by actual research).

Dude I'm not reading your not all men bullshit lol. You already lost your marbles with cussing and insulting me for enacting personal safety measures. It really made you seem not like a predator there

Jen0125 posted...

I'm not reading any of that lol. When you have to live a life not knowing if any given man is going to harm you then you can talk to me about men being predators.

I mean, thats how everyone lives, tbf

Jen0125 posted...

Dude I'm not reading your not all men bullshit lol. You already lost your marbles with cussing and insulting me for enacting personal safety measures. It really made you seem not like a predator there

Did he really cuss at you? And he wasnt saying you wrong for enacting personal safety measures. But since you didnt read his post, you wouldnt now that. He said enacting personal safety measures was fine But not demonizing a whole group for no reason

Calling someone a "fucking sexist" is swearing yes lol.

I don't care if a man thinks I'm a sexist because I refuse to trust random men with anything.

I'll stop demonizing men when they stop demonizing themselves by their actions.

Also you admitting men also are afraid of men isn't a win. It shows my point. No one is safe from men.

Jen0125 posted...

Dude I'm not reading your not all men bulls*** lol.

But it's not "not all men" bullshit. It's looking at how to cultivate better emotional intelligence in men, with the goal of making it fewer men. I happily acknowledge that it doesn't have to be all men to be too many men, and that sometimes assuming the worst is the only way to stay safe. But hiring a babysitter is not one of those cases, and that kind of blanket sexism only makes the problem worse.

I'll continue my blanket sexism because it keeps me safe from men. Thanks.

Jen0125 posted...

Calling someone a "fucking sexist" is swearing yes lol.

I don't care if a man thinks I'm a sexist because I refuse to trust random men with anything.

I'll stop demonizing men when they stop demonizing themselves by their actions.

Also you admitting men also are afraid of men isn't a win. It shows my point. No one is safe from men.

I remember him calling you sexist, though I dont remember it being a fucking sexist But, whatever

Also, I dont think anyone here thinks you should trust random men, as there are plenty of people who just dont trust other random people

And the problem with waiting for men to stop demonizing themselves is that many men already dont demonize themselves Some have, but the same could be said for women. The actual problem is thinking because some men do a certain, most/every man must also do that same certain thing For example, why should person A be demonized for something person B did when they are very people

I dont see how its a win. I feel the same about women. Just like I live a life not knowing if any given man is ping to harm me, I also love a life not knowing if any given women is going to harm me So, if in that same sense, no one is safe from women, either

Then I'll continue considering you roughly on par with the MAGA crowd in how unwilling you are to think critically about situations instead of resorting to unnecessary prejudice that only makes things worse.

LinkPizza posted...

I remember him calling you sexist, though I dont remember it being a f***ing sexist But, whatever

It was "sexist piece of shit," which is close enough that I didn't feel the need to correct her.

adjl posted...

Then I'll continue considering you roughly on par with the MAGA crowd

That's a little much >_______________________>

ReturnOfFa posted...

That's a little much >_______________________>

ReturnOfFa posted...

That's a little much >_______________________>

No, don't you see? Women who have an innate distrust for the patriarchy and men are the same as people who want literally everyone to suffer.

I love how Jen has turned this into yet another men are the problem thing. Still I suppose it doesn't matter much as Jen doesn't want kids so won't make the choice of who should be a baby sitter for her kids thankfully.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

to being the scum of this planet and that includes being a kiddie fiddler.

The fuck is this topic even about anymore? Men vs women? This is why I wanted to stop like 5 times. This is just a mess.

adjl posted...

Then I'll continue considering you roughly on par with the MAGA crowd in how unwilling you are to think critically about situations instead of resorting to unnecessary prejudice that only makes things worse.

It was "sexist piece of shit," which is close enough that I didn't feel the need to correct her.

The sentiment that Jen is sharing is the same sentiment shared by just about every single woman on the planet, which is that they have to be careful with men, because aside from the power imbalance meaning a date with a man on Tinder could literally mean the end of their life, men do certain things more than women do them. Nearly all of them have enough anecdotes by the age of 16. From things such as catcalling to creepy uncles, you only have to be in the real world for 3 seconds to see this. Yes, there are female creeps. The vast majority of them are men. On top of that, men are more violent in general. Men are just volatile.

Yeah, that's technically pretty prejudiced. Who cares. Men do plenty of good things too.

Don't know what's been taken away from anything I've been saying, but that's what I've been trying to say as well. The statistics agree with this. You can challenge them if you want. I see no reason to. Nothing about anything I just said is controversial.

I'm sorry if I have come off as lazy, but I'm not really on the same energy level as you when it's not really a topic I like talking about, as well as having to argue with multiple people.

we wouldn't hire a man as a babysitter

it'd probably be fine but the track record of sexual predators that are male babysitters is extremely high and there's no amount of trust offered to wade into that ocean looking for an island.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Adjl's a good guy k

This topic is just cancer

Also you called me a predator like 6 times so you're not one to talk.

Jen0125 posted...

No, don't you see? Women who have an innate distrust for the patriarchy and men are the same as people who want literally everyone to suffer.

How is advocating for keeping men out of an entire field any different from advocating for keeping black people out of a job?

That's the line you don't seem to be recognizing: Any idiot knows it's a good idea for women to be cautious around random men. That's the unfortunate reality of the world, since far too many men are creeps. To go beyond that and say that men shouldn't be hired as babysitters, though, is relying on prejudice when you do have the opportunity to screen people on a more individual basis and negate most or all of the statistical risks associated with men. That's MAGA levels of brainless discrimination, and it causes very real harm no matter who it's directed at.

Whiterun_Guard_ posted...

Yeah, that's technically pretty prejudiced. Who cares.

And sometimes, you don't really have the option not to be prejudiced or otherwise rely on assumptions. It's not always possible or safe to collect enough data to assess things on an individual basis, and in many cases jumping to a prejudiced conclusion yields significantly more benefit than harm overall (such as categorically refusing to be alone with a strange man, which risks unnecessarily hurting a few innocent men's feelings, but can prevent being victimized, which is a worthwhile tradeoff especially when those hurt feelings can be mitigated by a modicum of understand of women's collective experience). Prejudice isn't always bad. Whenever the opportunity is available to not act on prejudice, though, that's when being prejudiced is bad, and that's precisely what I'm taking issue with here.

Whiterun_Guard_ posted...

Also you called me a predator like 6 times

This a yellow alt then?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I would rephrase but I know how moderation is about bringing up moderated posts.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Yes. If I said it better it wouldn't have got such a response. I didn't mean to imply that I or any of you are predators. I meant it in a statistical sense.

for my entire life ive had a mix of male and female caregivers none of them ever tried to harm me

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Maybe we'll see a melty or two.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/7/4/4/AACR4kAAEuLw.jpg

This topic went places since last I looked.

I don't know what men in your life hurt you Jen, I wish you the best in your healing process.

Or maybe it's just hyperbolic shitposting of a hotdog water take, idk.

IronBornCorps posted...

I don't know what men in your life hurt you Jen, I wish you the best in your healing process.

Or maybe it's just hyperbolic shitposting of a hotdog water take, idk.

She's suspended.

Ah, yes. I see that now. I hope she is doing ok, the view point seems very...anxious.

darkknight109 posted...

She's suspended.

i wonder if she blames the patriarchy

darkknight109 posted...

She's suspended.

She deserved it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

all you want. She still won't fuck you.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


You claim a false thing again. You post on a public forum so expect to be challenged on your bullshit.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

where to start
she was called sexist so who failed 3rd grade now

potdnewb posted...

where to start
she was called sexist so who failed 3rd grade now

Don't bother. Simps will simp.

These "burns" are not as good as you think. It's sad you carry on but I'm not surprised you do.

IronBornCorps posted...

Ah, yes. I see that now. I hope she is doing ok, the view point seems very...anxious.

I mean, she clearly has issues, that's pretty obvious from her responses here and elsewhere. It's not a new thing either. Dunno what happened in her life to bring her to where she is now, but I think it's pretty apparent she has some things she needs to work through and doesn't seem to be doing that.

AWinterJ posted...

That's not what happened but you follow that narrative all you want. She still won't fuck you

we're all in the same topic, and it's what happened.

if you don't think so then , because adj straight admitted doing that in this topic

ConfusedTorchic posted...

y'know, which is a totally normal thing to call someone pointing at that statistically a male is more likely to be a sexual predator than a female

Do you think it's not?

I mean, let's take a couple of the things Jen said about dudes being predators and swap it with some other demographic and crime-descriptor and see how it reads. Why don't we swap all instances of "men" and "predator" with... oh, I don't know... "black person" and "criminal"?

That gives us lines like:

I love watching black people fight their way out of their deserved reputation of being criminals among the human species lmao

and (in response to adjl's question of what he'd done to deserve a reputation of being a predator):

Unfortunately, born black. Bum luck. Better luck next life.

and

I have no choice but to be prejudicial because you never know what black person is a criminal.

and

I would love for parents to give black children the emotional tools they need to not fall in crime. But in general, they don't. And I don't trust black people until there's a culture shift. Does that hurt your feelings as a black person? That's too damn bad. Your feelings don't outweigh my need for personal safety.

and

I don't care if a black person thinks I'm a racist because I refuse to trust random black people with anything.

I'll stop demonizing black people when they stop demonizing themselves by their actions.

Also you admitting black people also are afraid of black people isn't a win. It shows my point. No one is safe from black people.

Do we see the problem yet?

ConfusedTorchic posted...

y'know, which is a totally normal thing to call someone pointing at that statistically a male is more likely to be a sexual predator than a female.

It is if they're being a sexist piece of shit. Which Jen was, in that particular context. Note that the context in question was not pointing out the statistical reality that men are more likely to be sexual predators than women (hence I did not respond the same way to the numerous other people that have said the same thing, a group which includes myself), but rather telling me that I personally deserve the reputation of being a predator purely for being born a man. That's just blatant, unjustified sexism, so I treated it accordingly. She doesn't want to be called a sexist piece of shit? Then she shouldn't be a sexist piece of shit. The same goes for anyone else, swapping in whatever adjective is most appropriate for the prejudicial discrimination being exercised in that context (specifically when dealing with transphobia, I tend to lean more on silly g-rated gibberish swears like "dinglemuffins" and "cunglenugglers" because it somehow feels appropriate to do so in dealing with such ridiculous people, but that's just a personal quirk).

I've made my position clear: Don't prejudicially discriminate against people - of any kind - unless you have no other choice. Sometimes, it is actually your only option and the harms of not doing so outweigh the harms of doing so. I've acknowledged this, and I don't have a problem with it because that's just how the world works. There's a difference, however, between being prejudicially cautious when that's your only option, and relying on prejudice when you have the option to judge people as individuals instead of statistics. The latter is bad and should be avoided.

yeah i don't care about your mental gymnastics to try and justify being a toxic asshole lmao

If we want to stick with the gymnastics metaphor, that's roughly the mental equivalent of touching your toes. It's not a particularly complicated rationalization, you just think I'm responding to something I wasn't responding to.