Father Holds His Daughter's Hand on Bus, Transit Police Investigate
May 12th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Another example of the hazards of Parenting While Male. According to Suspicious incident on-board MBTA bus resolved (5/6/08) from WBZ News in Boston:
"Transit police have identified the man seen with a young girl on-board a bus at Sullivan Station Sunday night.
"Officers have met with both the young girl, and the family member who was with her on the bus.
"A passenger noticed a man holding the child's hand. That passenger says she overheard the girl say she was hungry, and the man told her to 'Please be quiet.'
"The police say there was no criminal conduct. They consider the case closed."
So the man (pictured, with the girl) was a "family member," probably the father but maybe a different relative. He held his daughter's hand on the bus and told her to be quiet when she was complaining about being hungry. For this, he's investigated.
The case reminds me of the Victor Emmer case--see my blog post 'The police can't even stick a loitering charge on this guy, and they've gone and ruined his life'.
It also reminds me of the Virginia Billboard controversy--see my blog post Rush Limbaugh Covers Our Protest of Man-Bashing Virginia Health Department Billboards.
"));
19 queries. 0.409 seconds.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Another example of the hazards of Parenting While Male.
Damn I already had to live with Walking/Driving While Black now if I become a dad I have to add Parenting While Male to it? sigh...
May 12th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
The passenger who reported the "incident" was a woman. Warning bells were set off because -- the girl said she was HUNGRY!!!
If the genders were reversed, I am certain there would not have been a report OR an investigation. In 21st Century America, men are not deemed to be real parents; the default presumption is that we are sex offenders. Let's all stop trying to kid ourselves -- that's how we're viewed.
This is among the most disgusting stories I've seen you report, Glenn. And that's saying a lot. Perhaps because it says so much about where we are as a society, and the implicit misandry that's all around us. Good for the man that he wasn't arrested.
I suggest we let the Transit Authority know how we feel.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Well, he is a "man" so he has to be guilty of "something," right? There has to be something they can "get him on?"
May 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
...Good thing we live in a free country and not in one of those paranoid police states.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
This last weekend a friend shared that an elementary girl called 911 against her dad.
The father had to explain to the police, who were hostile toward him, that his daughter called because he refused to give ice cream to her. The father added that he felt like a criminal.
I suspect that when the father explained to the neighbors what happened, he was now a suspect for the abusive dad list.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
A woman in this situation might be able to sue for being investigated without probable cause. This man is lucky he wasn't arrested.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
This should be required reading for every parent, perspective parent, or nosey-person-getting-into-other-people's-affairs:
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2008/05/monsters-hobgoblins-and-threat-to-our.html
May 12th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Glenn, could you take a look at your filter. I've tried to post the same posting twice and it just comes back to the article without posting. No errors...no nothing. The only thing I provided was a link.
The comment number was comment-240098
Thanks!
May 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I should say the only thing that I provided that may be construed as odd was a link in addition to some ultra clean text.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
What good would that do?
The TA receives a complaint. CYA protocol requires that they forward the complaint to the police (otherwise they are liable).
The police receive a complaint. CYA protocol requires that they investigate the complaint (otherwise they are in a much weaker position if sued).
The only place to combat this is by changing the social perception of men.
How do we change that?
We have a few options:
Elevate the status of men by promoting good men.
Reduce the status of women by demonstrating bad women.
Which option is more likely to work? Which option has more facts on it's side? Which option is more provable? What are the unintended consequences of each option (promoting men is analogous with promoting chivalry, which is a bad thing for the men's movement)?
It is politically incorrect, but a quick summary of the questions which need to be asked leads to the latter being the "better" option.
You have 3 options:
Promote the action of demonstrating the bad side of women and start that course of action.
Argue that promoting men would be the better option, and implement a plan for doing so.
Do neither and just be content complaining about how unfair the world is.
Pick one.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
We all see how difficult it is to control children in public so if a father says to a child "Please be quiet" and manages to calm her down then he ought to be applauded! And of course the man has to hold the child by the hand. On a dangerous subway and metro system, he has to physically monitor her.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Men in post-feminist society are literally being driven out of children's lives -- including their own. Those children, in turn, will grow up with the idea that it is strange that a grown man would be involved in any way with a child -- much less want to be a parent. As a man who knew from the time I was a child that I wanted to be a husband and father, I find this tragic.
How sad that so many would-have-been great husbands and fathers are saying, "I just can't risk it."
How unbelievable that so few mate and child-hungry women can connect the dots, and see that there is anything wrong with what has been put in place to "protect" them.
For men, I recommend single parent adoption of a child who needs a parent. Then, if a woman enters the picture, she will have no ability to strip the man of his parenthood.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Lance, very interesting article. We live in hysterical times where statisitically insignificant threats are blown out of all of proportion. Every man is a potential sex predator because a few are. I blame the hyper-aggressive, hyper-competitive news media because it needs to scare us for ratings (you know, "is the air that you breathe in the park safe?") The slightest risk becomes a cause for acute alarm. Local news ratings go through the roof when a snowstorm approaches (not for you, Glenn, with your palm trees and all that), because news outlets thrive on panic. So now we are taught to fear blacks, Hispanis, priests -- and even men. Wow!
Sadly some of the worst offenders among those buying into all the fear and hysterics are overly-protective fathers (you know the type: ". . . any guy lays a hand on MY kid, I'll kill him!"). Hey, man, you need to stand up and quit the damn stereotyping about other MEN as potential felons, just because they had the misfortune to be born male, like you. What makes you think you're exempt from being steretoyped?
May 12th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Jay R, I think your single-parent adoption is a great idea. This is where we need to head.
Note, though, that men are spending more time with their own kids than ever before. So you have a strange situation: men are more a part of kids' lives than ever, yet society is telling our children to fear men, to disrespect men more than ever. Turn on the news and you see crap like this; then a commercial comes on and the man's portrayed as a buffoon. What the hell is all this telling our sons? That there's something wrong with being male, of course. That female is better.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Tim Murray says: "Note, though, that men are spending more time with their own kids than ever before."
PK asks: Are they? Do you have any evidence for this? It's my impression that it's just the opposite: With more children being born to unwed mothers, divorce, and men (and women for that matter) working more hours outside of the home to keep the welfare state going, wouldn't that imply that men (and women for that matter, again) are spending LESS time with their children?
May 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
It won't do a bit of good criticizing the TA or Police. They'll just get on their high-horse and sanctimoniously preach something like, "if it even saves a single child it's worth it." Except THEY are immune to the life-altering effects of these intrusive, illegal, unconstitutional baseless investigations.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I figure that this is merely an extension of people's reaction to men violating their historical role. Just as early women who worked baffled people, men who parent face the same problem.
The difference is that firstly, women quickly developed a movement to deal with this, secondly, people are willing to be a lot harsher to men than women and that the media frenzy we get with paedophiles has contributed to what before would have been merely a snort.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
PolishKnight asks for evidence about dads spending more time with kids than ever before. I've seen this in various places, for example: http://www.newsweek.com/id/42760
(Of course men still don't spend "enough" time with children, the feminist news media is quick to point out.)
Stephen May, I'm from the Earl Weaver school of getting things done. Do you know who Earl Weaver was? He was a major baseball manager for the Baltimore Orioles widely regarded as a genius -- and a pain in the neck. Earl Weaver would complain to umpires about everything he thought was wrong. He would fume, scream, kick dirt and flat-out argue everything. I doubt that this ever changed a call that he specifically argued about . . . BUT the umpires admitted privately that they were "more careful" when they worked a game with Earl Weaver. Just like Fox will be more careful after the 5,000 letters it got in a matter of hours over "Bad Dads."
May 12th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
This almost happened to me. I was traveling with my then 11 yo daughter and was at a hotel in Jacksonville FL. I was waiting to check into the hotel while an older lady was giving the clerk a hard time about something or another. Anyway the next morning at checkout time, the same clerk was there. I made a comment to her about the older woman giving her such a hard time the night before. The clerk told me that after my daughter and left this older woman told her to call the police because no man should be at a hotel with a little girl like that. Thank God the clerk did not call the police. This lady didnt know me, just passed judgement that I was a man with a little girl in a hotel and that was BAD.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
So lets see, I have read that in a certain school district, construction workers are afraid to work on a school for fear of being labeled a rapist, men in certain cities are not allowed to be "alone" near a child's playground, men such as the poor guy in El Dorado Hills that was arrested for speaking with children at storytime (I think this guy was a little weird and probably had a child-like mind and it seemed normal for him to converse with children), men are not allowed to "stare" at women because it is considered a type of "rape", and now holding your own child's (or niece's, cousin's, etc.) hand in a public setting in which you are responsible for their safety is suspicious. God forbid I should be caught having ANY physical contact with my daughter in a public place, or the Policia de Feminista will arrest me. When will enough of these straws be enough to break the camel's back? How extreme does it have to get? It makes me sad to think that all of the superheroes I grew up respecting have been converted into monsters and predators. I am thoroughly disgusted. I will not sit idly by and watch this continue to unfold. I will do whatever I can to make the world a safe place to be a Dad again. This man's accuser should be given psychological testing or perhaps sued for slandering this poor man. Accusations have ruined too many lives, and the accusers have not been punished for what is truly a transgression. A man should be able to hold his child's hand and comfort her and protect her without scrutiny from some overzealous paranoid nosy busy body.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
this man was probably embarrassed beyond belief. i would have caused a seen for the ages. this is why i say to refrain from making babies. change? change what? ever try to reason with a women? the only change expected BY them is FROM you. almost 60 % of collage students are women. how many do you think take womens studies courses?
change is coming alright. november 3rd should be just a great day for white males.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Tim Murray, I sometimes wish Glenn's blog had a thumbs up / thumbs down system for comments, like youtube. Your comments would get my thumbs up every time.
I like your analogy about Earl Weaver, and I would like to add to it. Recently my brother and I got mugged. At first we decided not to go to the police, because we figured "what's the point". Then I thought about it, and decided it's a bit like a vote. If nobody went to the police, the police would have no information about anything, and the system would not work for the people at all.
This is the same. People have to make their feelings known. Like a vote. If nobody does it, we all lose. But the more people speak their feelings, the closer we get to serving the people's interests.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Damn, in the last 24 hours Glenn has posted a story about a man going to jail for his child not passing her GRE, a professor at a prestigious institution of higher learning threatening to sue her students for expressing opposing opinions, and now a father/relative being investigated for holding a girl's hand on a public bus. All that is needed to make the day complete is another article talking about how in the future men will not be necessary because children will be able to be created from women only.
Unjust incarceration, suppression of thought, and demonization seem to be the flavors of the day. Glenn you sure you do not want to think about lifting the ban on that certain word ; ) ?
May 12th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Every time I hear about a story like this the one thing that always stands out is that the "concerned" person is typically a woman and the "suspicious" person is typically male. I never hear the genders reversed or women or men finding the behavior of women "suspicious" even when it is exactly the same behavior. The other thing that stands out is that it is never clear what actually makes these women uneasy. What about a man telling a little girl "Please be quiet" suggests that he is a sexual predator? I hear far worse being said by women to the children with them and no one bats an eye. The whole thing seems beyond silly at this point.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
George, I am sorry to hear that you and your brother were mugged. That just reminds me that men are more vulnerable to physical attack outside the home than are women, which belies the feminist canard that "men have no idea how it feels" to have to worry about walking the streets. First, that's false. Second, which is worse -- a severe beating or a rape? I wouldn't want to make the choice.
And thanks for the kind words. I do try to imitate the reasonableness of our host.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
'Please be quiet.'
My God, the brutality of the modern male knows no bounds.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
It was the girl's father. The whole thing was triggered by busy body woman who has been programmed by the media and alarmist feminists to believe that any man with a young girl must be kid napping the girl. "better to er on the side of paranoia." The woman is probably telling herself "what if it had been a pervert?"
At Harvard, feminist professors teach their impressionable students that all heterosexual intercourse is rape because woman can no longer voluntarily consent as a result of being programmed by the patriarchy. Not. I heard many woman say no.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Oh dear what's next?
I can see the headlines now:
Man takes daughter to Mcdonalds for BigMac, lands in jail
or
Father and daughter's day at Disneyland destroyed after Father goes to jail for hugging her.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:55 pm
I wonder if the reactions here would be the same if it had turned out that the man was not a parent, but a relative that was subsequently found to sexually abusing the little girl?
Of course, the headlines would be different - but what initiated the initial concern would have been the same. Of course, then there would be calls to hang the bastard, preferably without even a trial.
Unfortunately, America - and other countries - is / are very schizophrenic about children and their safety.
People, and society, are molded by what they see in the news. People, by nature, want to know what evils they need to be aware of in their lives, to protect themselves and even others.
Doc
May 12th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
# Danny Says:
Damn I already had to live with Walking/Driving While Black now if I become a dad I have to add Parenting While Male to it? sigh...
--------------------------------
Only if you are holding a white girl's hand.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
In most social situations, I avoid any interaction with children below a certain age for fear of being suspected as a pedophile.
But when men who are directly related to children are coming under suspicion like this, we have well and truly moved from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Society is becoming increasingly schizophrenic. On the one hand we turn a blind eye to many real evils and dangers. But we are also obsessed with finding evil in the most innocent of interactions.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:07 am
Nick Says: "But when men who are directly related to children are coming under suspicion like this, we have well and truly moved from the sublime to the ridiculous."
Doc Says: No one never knows who is directly related or not until one investigates. It will be that way until such time as everyone has a bar code tattooed on their foreheads.
Children, for generations, have been considered to be more precious and worthy of life than adults.
Doc
May 13th, 2008 at 3:59 am
Tim Murray:
Murder or rape?
I know which one I'm choosing every time.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:29 am
# Danny Says:
Damn I already had to live with Walking/Driving While Black now if I become a dad I have to add Parenting While Male to it? sigh...
--------------------------------
Only if you are holding a white girl's hand.
--------------------------------
True but if its a black girl's hand people will assume I kidnapped her because black men supposedly do nothing but get women pregnant then run out on them.
If you're a regular poster don't be scared to use your screenname.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:39 am
Of course, Doc comes down on the invasive government's side. You just never know. Children are precious. We all need bar codes.
Doc profits by stereotyping men. The more 'bad men' out there, the more Doc's business, and other's like it, will profit. Think of how many other people in the government profit by this hysteria. Think of how many people get attention by calling attention to "possibile pedophile at 3:00!" Of course, we all have to err on the side of caution. We have to have more reasons to assume that men are violent sexual deviants. We have to have government step in and separate kids from their fathers, just in case.
Let's put the kid in foster care. It's not like that system gets enough money and attention. Let's force dad out of the house for 2 weeks while we try to coerce the children into reporting some 'touching on the doll'.
I think I want a lemonaide.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:43 am
Particularly when there isn't more than one other adult around. Although lately I've found myself largely invisible to them-- a non person. My weekend job is at a facility where classes for kids are ending when I arrive. It is both troubling and a relief that they steer clear of me.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:44 am
So Doc, should we investigate any person man or woman who is seen in this situation? Do we need special branch of the police department just to run down every single adult that is seen holding hands with a child? I mean c'mon dude, seriously? I have a friend with a 10 yr old daughter and when I am watching her for him and we go to the store or something, sometimes I do hold her hand (in the parking lot, crossing the street, etc) simply because it's the right hting to do to ensure nothign happens to her. Should I be investigated? No, of course not.
If the guy was overheard saying something like "shut up or you wont' see your mommy again" or something I could see the cause for alarm, but to say "please be quiet"??? C'mon.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:48 am
doc,
"Children, for generations, have been considered to be more precious and worthy of life than adults. "
MCA, faulty reasoning.
Childrens welfare was of great concern, until the 50's feminist revolution, now it's undoubtably women's interests that have dwarfed all concern for others.
Prime example, an article a few weeks back about a women was standing in a river, about to drown her second daughter in a river, and the police stood by, and let her do it.
If it was a man standing in the river about to drown his children, he would have been shot to save the lives of the children.
Womens welfare now dwarfs even the welfare of children.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Doc, mother drowns children in river, as police watch.
If this was a man, he would have been shot, before he reached the river, in order to save the lives of the children. Now all three are dead.
I'ts a societal perversion that has now put the welfare of adult women, in front of the welfare of it's children.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351177,00.html
May 13th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Some may not have seen this post and statement, or are choosing to ignore it, preferring to throw stones instead.
Unfortunately, America - and other countries - is / are very schizophrenic about children and their safety.
Doc
May 13th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Doc,
Unfortunately, America - and other countries - is / are very schizophrenic about children and their safety.
MCA, Unfortunatelly America, and a few other countries are schitzophrenis about super protecting women, at the expense of all others equal protection., And yes we now dwarf the welfare of children in the new light of "protecting women"
May 13th, 2008 at 9:37 am
History lesson
callum Says: I figure that this is merely an extension of people's reaction to men violating their historical role. Just as early women who worked baffled people, men who parent face the same problem.
PK responds: So men didn't take their sons (or daughters even) to the ballgame in the 1950's? Or take them on the metro system and verbally discipline them? Women who "worked" as waitresses or even career women were subject to police investigations? That's news to me!
Callum continues: The difference is that firstly, women quickly developed a movement to deal with this.
PK responds: The difference is that women could appeal to chivalrous patronage from men. Feminism is just a form of chivalrous patronage.
Callum continues: secondly, people are willing to be a lot harsher to men than women and that the media frenzy we get with paedophiles has contributed to what before would have been merely a snort.
PK responds: There was a media frenzy about women putting infants into trash dumpsters and the reaction was to give women legal infant abandonment rights.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:45 am
callum: "I figure that this is merely an extension of people's reaction to men violating their historical role. Just as early women who worked baffled people, men who parent face the same problem."
Agreed. I think this is a lot of the problem. No one likes to give up privilege, and seeing a man with a child (without a woman in tow) sparks just this sort of jealous protection of privilege. And as men spend more and more time with children 1-on-1, I don't see this paranoia diminishing in the short term. I don't think it is any coincidence that everyone is focused on pedophilia and the like. Anything to vilify men in comparison to women will act (again in the short term) to preserve female privilege.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Lance, men in the past have spent plenty of time with children. In fact, I remember in my younger days that there was MORE paternal involvement with children via men's organizations. This is misandry, plain and simple. Don't blame traditional sexist roles. Thank feminist "equality" which requires demonization of men to sweep women's double dipping under the rug.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:45 am
You guys need to research your history. As in, more than 2 generations before your lifetime. Prior to the 1920's, fathers raised their boys by having them work alongside them on the farms. Prior to that, it was very common for fathers to have their children around or working with them in their workshops. It's only since the industrial age that the vast majority of fathers have gone away to work and been separated from their children.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:50 am
PK
Don't blame traditional sexist roles. Thank feminist "equality" which requires demonization of men to sweep women's double dipping under the rug.
It seems that I've been coming to that conclusion as well. Its almost as if feminst "equality" is rewriting the history of those roles. The father that literally broke his body doing hard labor to support his family while still spending time with children is painted in a totally different image than before.
In the past he was a hard working man that took on the dangers of the job in order to support his family and protect them from the risks of hard labor. While at the same time he spent time with his son(s) in an effort to instill in them the values and ethics they would need when the time came for them to support their own families and was the template that daughter(s) went by if and when they wanted a man in their lives.
Today that same man was a patriarchal tyrant that kept his wife in the home to have someone to clean, cook, and to take care of "his needs". While at the same time he drilled into his son(s) the patriarchal privileges that they were born with and taught them how to use them to maintain the patriarchy by subjugating their future wives just as they watched their father do to their mother and made sure his daughters were trained to be submissive so that there the future husbands they would be sold to (for political, financial, or power gain) would not have to worry about them daring to challenge the iron grip of the patriarchy. (Did I push the Patriarchy Panic Button enough?)
May 13th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Demonspawn: "You guys need to research your history. As in, more than 2 generations before your lifetime."
First, I don't care about more then 2 or 3 generations ago - I care about now and the generation prior. As Tim's reference states, men are spending more time with their children now then 20 years ago. I would agree with that. What happened decades or a century or more ago have no bearing.
I also think you are equating a toddler or young boy such as the very young child shown in the picture to a boy old enough to work in the fields (or whatever). I don't doubt that boys were apprenticed off, but I just don't buy that fathers spent a lot of time with young children. Young children were traditionally the purview of women and it was only once a child reached a certain age that a father would take much interest in raising the boy directly. I don't think this is the feminization of history - I think it is logical: if a father is out in the field or doing hard labor, why would he want a young child there to get in the way? This is especially true after employing children was outlawed.
I think Callum is right on here. When one considers young children (such as the one pictured) and the idea of 1-on-1 time with young children, I do think this situation challenges traditional female privilege and is therefore the seed of this AbuseHysteria directed at men. It is sexism and misandry. I think you are being far too close minded to only consider one without the other as I don't think there is anything "simple" about it.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:29 am
lance,
"First, I don't care about more then 2 or 3 generations ago - I care about now and the generation prior. As Tim's reference states, men are spending more time with their children now then 20 years ago. I would agree with that. What happened decades or a century or more ago have no bearing."
MCA, It does have bearing, if men were the part of the familly throughout history, and then suddenly removed during the industrial revolution.
From a non-hysterical academics viewpoint, we just went through a very substantial socialogical / famillial shift, In a very short period of time.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Lance, Spartans raised their children to be with their mothers, until, I believe the age of 5, Then the sons would transition to be in their fathers care.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:43 am
MCA: "MCA, It does have bearing, if men were the part of the familly throughout history, and then suddenly removed during the industrial revolution."
It does not have a bearing to understanding the jealous preservation of female privilege we witness today or understanding the AbuseHysteria of today. The populous only cares about the last generation or so when before/after comparisons are made. One can talk about the 1800's or the early 1900's until their blue in the face, and people just won't care. It is too far away for the vast majority of people for them to have a visceral understanding of the meaning. Individuals can perhaps have an intellectual understanding, but an intellectual understanding (or misunderstanding) is not what made this woman-who-cried-wolf call the cops. In this case it is a visceral belief that men and children don't mix and I believe this is borne out of the false belief that children and their upbringing of the privilege of women.
MCA: "From a non-hysterical academics viewpoint, we just went through a very substantial socialogical / famillial shift, In a very short period of time."
Agreed. And now suddenly men are asserting their righteous claim to their children. Even young children which historically were primarily cared for by women. And society (probably especially women) doesn't like it. It doesn't "feel" right.
Ok, back to work.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:47 am
MCA, sounds about right. But it doesn't matter:
- this is a girl (I do believe a boy would be treated different - even today)
- this girl looks younger then 5 (though I don't know)
- Sparta was A LONG time ago in a very different galaxy
ok, now I really am back to work.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:54 am
So disturbing on so many levels.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Danny says: "In the past he was a hard working man that took on the dangers of the job in order to support his family and protect them from the risks of hard labor. While at the same time he spent time with his son(s) in an effort to instill in them the values and ethics they would need when the time came for them to support their own families and was the template that daughter(s) went by if and when they wanted a man in their lives."
PK responds: My wife and I were watching The Bachelor last night (porn for women!) and the woman tells the bachelor in breathless emotionalism: "The first thing I looked for in you was..." and I asked my wife, a sensible foreign woman, what was the first thing she looked for in me?
She responded (after careful thought): "Reliability."
A common theme from men is that women seem to like "bad boys" or divorce men when they get "bored" with the relationship while in other cultures, a "boring" life of a home with food and clothing and no wars going on is considered a good thing. Women are taught that they are entitled to the world owing them a living, that work is "fun" and fulfilling, and that men should give them everything they want and apologize at the same time.
It's no wonder that they're disappointed, frustrated, and ultimately angry even when they have lives that are better than 95% of the rest of the people on the planet.
About The Bachelor: In nearly all cases, once the camera is off and the excitement is over, the relationships between two perfect men and women fall apart. Isn't that a good allegory for so-called "equal" ideal relationships by modern feminist romance standards?
May 13th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Lance: "I think you are being far too close minded to only consider one without the other as I don't think there is anything "simple" about it."
Sorry, that didn't come out the right way. I meant that I think the real causes/fixes are not so simple as one thing or the other. My reference to someone being "close minded" was too harsh. Sorry 'bout that.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
An awful lot of "what ifs?" showing up on this story. What if my aunt had testicles? She'd be my uncle. But she doesn't and she isn't. And like the rest of these what-ifs, it's irrelevant.
May 13th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Lance says: "One can talk about the 1800's or the early 1900's until their blue in the face, and people just won't care. "
PK responds: My oh my, Lance, have you ever heard of women not being allowed to vote before 1919? Or women being beaten with a stick the size of your thumb? These historical claims, some true and some laughably false, drive the feminist movement.
In my particular case, I remember a very different society as little as 30 years ago. Men brought their children to ball games including on the metro system. I'm amazed this woman found it exceptional to see a father with a small girl on a subway especially in Boston. Men are taking their children ALL THE TIME to Boston ballgames and usually it's a good way for the mother to get them off her hands for a while.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:14 pm
We have an MP in the UK called Patricia Hewitt. In 1995 she questioned "whether we can trust men with children", and concluded that there needed to be a practice introduced of "not leaving men on their own with groups of children" in environments such as schools.
Suprisingly this person then later went on to become Minister for Women and EQUALITY. Probably not so surprisingly, while occupying this position, she was at one stage (2005) found guilty by a judicial review of unlawful sexual discrimination, when she appointed a third choice candidate to a position, because she was female, in favour of a stronger candidate who was male. Thus she broke the very principles that her role was supposed to protect.
May 13th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Reminds me of these stupid Child Savers. They "err on the side of the child." What these bureaucratic idiots fail to understand is that they are no better than the Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses in the days of Jesus, when He said to them in Matthew 23:15 (NIV):
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are."
God save us from the Child Savers. They separated me from my children 14 years ago and seven years later they separate me again from them permanently. Then the foster parents adopt my children and turn right around and give contact privileges to their mother who lost them to foster care in the first place.
Tell me the logic in that! Anything that the CPS does is way beyond logic! Well did Ronald Reagan say that the nine most terrifying words in the English Language are: I'm from the government, AND I'M HERE TO HELP
May 14th, 2008 at 2:36 am
MCA says "faulty reasoning.
Childrens welfare was of great concern, until the 50's feminist revolution, now it's undoubtably women's interests that have dwarfed all concern for others."
True. It seems that in many cases, our society is actually more concerned with protecting women than children. For example, if a child is being physically abused the authorities will often be reluctant to intervene. But if a woman makes a claim of domestic violence, just watch the legal system swing into action.
Even though women are adults and children are, well, children. And yet society puts more emphasis on protecting women.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:42 am
"Doc Says: No one never knows who is directly related or not until one investigates. It will be that way until such time as everyone has a bar code tattooed on their foreheads."
So every time we see an adult with a child, we should assume they are an abuser who has taken the child until they can prove otherwise?
I don't believe that society is always overprotective of children. Rather, I think society is overprotective of children where men are concerned. But where women are concerned, society is often willing to ignore abuse.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:59 am
callum Says:
May 12th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
I figure that this is merely an extension of people's reaction to men violating their historical role. Just as early women who worked baffled people, men who parent face the same problem.
____________________________________________________________
So if you walked into a store in the 1950s to find a woman serving behind the counter, you would have assumed she was a robber and the real shopkeeper was tied up out the back?
In pre-feminist times women still worked. It's just that married women were expected to leave the workforce, and women had difficulty advancing to high positions in many occupations.
But this was not part of some plot to keep women down. At a time when many jobs were less attractive, women wanted the option of staying home and so it was better to ensure that men could support families. Indeed, if a woman had taken a job off a man in the 1950s it would have been the man's wife who would have been most upset about it.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:27 am
This may have already been previously covered on Glenn's blog or newsletter, from memory; but British Airways has been accused of treating all male passengers as potential paodophiles.
Their policy is that no unaccompanied child under 16 may be seated next to an adult male stranger.
http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=414550&in_page_id=1770
May 14th, 2008 at 6:38 am
And to play the devil's advocate for a moment or two...
Young children are typically more trusting of a woman than of a man. This can be attributed to their close proximity to women during their formative years.
The presumption could then be made that a woman next to a young child will provide a more soothing effect upon the child in the event of turbulence of other disruptions.
A child that is happy in his or her environment will make for a much better flight for all people concerned.
Doc
May 14th, 2008 at 7:03 am
"Young children are typically more trusting of a woman than of a man. This can be attributed to their close proximity to women during their formative years."
That is an assumption - a very general assumption. Every little girl knows that daddy is the strongest man ever. How can she not feel secure by his side? Besides, soothing is required after a painful event. In a fearful event, you need courage and reassurance. So by that logic, it could be recommended that all young children should be put besides males only. How is that?
Even better, daddy can make the turbulence seem a whole lot fun if he invents a game around it.
I have yet to see such a case happening for a young boy. If anyone has seen such a case let me know.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:00 am
Pankajj: Daddy isn't on the plane. We are talking about putting kids next to strangers.
Doc
May 14th, 2008 at 8:25 am
Doc: Neither is mom.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:30 am
Assuming all the child said was "i'm hungry" and not some pertinent details left out of the story, the fact that someone would actually snitch for something like that is appalling enough.
But, additionally, the fact that there are surveillance cameras at bus stops that photographed the guy is enough to make you want to move out of the country.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Doc: Daddy isn't on the plane. We are talking about putting kids next to strangers.
Pete: Neither is mom.
Sorry for net speak but OWNED. The devil's advocate needs to review his case.
May 19th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Quantis airlines also assumes that all males are dangerous to children... they have a policy to not site unaccompanied minors next to adult males.
This institutional sexism is disgusting.
The facts are: the vast majority of males are decent people... and children are safe in the presense of adult males.
May 25th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
The man is very lucky he still gets to hold his child's hand. Many juristictions will not allow this, especially if the man has gone through a divorce in the "Family Court" system of America. yannalfo
relood@yahoo.com
June 12th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I notice there is no mention of the fathers feeling about the investigation.
I am the father of two girls, two and six years old. If the same thing happened to me, I'd be annoyed to be sure, but would expect to have the whole thing cleared up in short time as it was in the case above.
On the other hand, if either of my daughters were to somehow end up holding hands with a stranger in a public place, I would be grateful beyond words to whoever brought it to the attention of law enforcement.
June 12th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
David,
Don't bank on it. I was falsely alleged of improprieties toward my then six year old daughter back in 1994. I told my wife that this would be resolved in a few weeks.
That few weeks has gone into 14 years. In that time, my wife divorced me, remarried a real child molester, and moved to Kentucky where they committed their own impropriety against my same daughter and my son. She lost her parental rights, and mine were taken away because I chose to rest my case upon the standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" - a standard not used in Family Court.
I did not choose my circumstances, but rather they chose me. I am hoping that I can change this in late July when my son turns 18. A few days before his birthday, I am going to see my daughter who lives in Eastern Kentucky and present the facts to her that were not presented to her by the Foster/Adoptive Parents. If she won't listen, maybe my son will, and then he will turn his sister around, and then they can come home to me finally.
Check out Glenn Sacks' articles about Child Protective Services, and you will become a big believer that CPS deserves to be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up to give more protection to the families of this nation.
I am also the National Co-Director of the United Family Rights Association, so I know of what I am speaking.