As you read on, try to imagine how this story would play out if the young man had been a young woman.
Below this comment is a news story that's sort of a Rorschach inkblot of our hysterical, suspicious, anti-male culture. It's about a 19-year-old guy -- a prime age for scary predators, wouldn't you agree? -- who saw a little girl eating sand. Concerned for her well-being, the young man immediately took her by the hand to lead her to her mother. A neighbor, suspecting the worst, alerted the girl's father about this monster, and the father called the police. Police promptly arrived and cuffed the teen. However, they soon discovered that the teen was actually a Good Samaritan, not a child predator.
OK, maybe it really did look all too suspicious without knowing the facts. And maybe there wasn't time to check out this young man's intentions.
But somehow I can't escape the thought that if the 19-year-old had been a woman instead of a guy, the police wouldn't have been called; the neighbor would have investigated without alarming everyone; and the do-gooder wouldn't have been humiliated the way this well-intentioned young man was.
Somehow I can't escape the thought that the concerned neighbor and the girl's father would have given a female a little more leeway. (And, yes, I know, the ones who jumped to the false conclusion were men. That doesn't excuse it.)
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the same sort of guilty-until-proven innocent hysteria that allows rape accusers to effectively ruin the lives of innocent men and boys. It's a manifestation of prejudging a person based on his gender. The exact same event would be viewed very differently if the guy had been a woman -- a Rorschach inkblot of a society in the serious grip of misandry.
HERE IS THE NEWS STORY:
Would-be abductor really a Good Samaritan: cops
A 19-year-old man accused of trying to abduct a four-year-old girl from a northside home yesterday morning was really just a Good Samaritan trying to help, cops say.
Police were called to the area of 129 B Avenue and 92 Street around 11:30 a.m. after a report of a man who allegedly watched some children play, then took one by the hand.
"Next thing I know the woman from next door is saying 'Hey, some guy just tried to take your daughter,' " the child's father told CTV Edmonton. "He had come up, had her hand and was trying to take her out of the back yard."
The man took off, with the father - who called 911 - hot on his heels. Cops caught up with the man and cuffed him.
However, by last night, police realized the man was no bad guy at all.
According to EPS spokesman Karen Carlson, he saw the little girl eating sand, and concerned for her well-being, took her by the hand and knocked on her home's back door to alert the mother - and that's when the confusion began.
He was released from custody without any charges around 10:15 p.m. last night.
Link: http://www.edmontonsun.com/news/edmonton/2009/05/17/9484796-sun.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
40 comments:
Even a man performing an act of kidness is mistaken as a pedophile. This is why, sad to say, if I saw a child dying, I would be very hesitant to do anything ( other than call for the police and an ambulance) to save the child's life. It hurts me to post this as I have the drive to save lives in danger.
How about an apology? Or a thank you? Or a kudos?
I guess I must be fantasizing... Probably the guy should be thankful for not having been lynched by an angry mob.
" This, ladies and gentlemen, is the same sort of guilty-until-proven innocent hysteria that allows rape accusers to effectively ruin the lives of innocent men and boys. "
The media jumps on every report where a man or boy is accused or thought to have done something wrong to a woman or child,hypes it up and the public eats it up.
At least the police got his side of the story, the police who arrested me didn't even want to hear my side of the story (of course neither did any of those who were supposed to defend me) but,maybe the FBI will read and understand what I sent them and the U.S. Department Of Justice.
"Probably the guy should be thankful for not having been lynched by an angry mob."
How true, El Barato. So many men have been beaten and even killed after being falsely accused.
Rape charges dropped, but scars remain
'For more than three months, Scott Michael Waite wore an electronic ankle bracelet that made him a prisoner in his own home. With his reputation sullied and his life put on hold, he sat accused of raping a 26-year-old woman he had met in an Oakdale bar on a cold January night.
But in a recent unique turn of events, after an exhaustive investigation by his attorney, Ryan Garry, prosecutors dropped the charges in April. Waite, 29, now must rebuild his life.
"I'm pretty shook up by the whole thing," Waite said. "I was treated like a complete criminal. To hear people say these malicious things about me is really hurtful."
The case was dropped "in the interest of justice" and was an unusual one "where we get information after the fact and feel we really can't prove our case at all," said Susan Harris, first assistant attorney in Washington County. "In this particular case, they found a lot of people willing to come forward and speak against [the accuser]."'
http://www.startribune.com/local/east/46508057.html?elr=KArksi8cyaiUBP7hUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUHDYaGEP7eyckcUX
"..how this story would play out if the young man had been a young woman. "
She would be worshipped like a supergodess.
Are stories like this the reason why men in the middle-east and other parts of the world have had to "oppress" (manage) their women?
Is it because the more freedom you give women, the more destructive they and their leeches become?
the leeches include the media, business, feminists, the government, and women themselves, because women also benefit from the current situation.
women and the above, work together to selfishly get what they want, at the expense of men, children and society. For women its 'freedom' (as they see it), for business its more sales to women (because women spend the money). for government its maintenance of power (by telling the female voters, "we are on your side")
We in the west have lost our most effective tool, religion, in helping women to live better lives. religion gave women a book and a set of standards on how they should behave. It also comforted them in times of need. The hole that religion filled has now been filled with greed and selfishness, the female default.
make no mistake, religion was the best pro-active tool we had in managing our women and stabilizing our society's, but that is now over.
Do we believe the law alone can force women and the leeches to behave properly?
Not on its own.
I see the law as reactive, not proactive, but then I think we need both approaches, and their is a definate need for strong law.
I believe technology and communication is now our best proactive means of making women behave themselves.
technology is allowing men to communicate freely with other like minded men, to see the (ugly) truth about women.
But its not just about false rape allegations, its about the psychological and sometimes psycho-sexual abusive power games women play with children. Its about womens violence by proxy, its about womens role in how wars start. its about alot of ugly truths, which are starting to show up on our blogs, on forums, and even in movies and 24 hour news.
by allowing men to freely share the truth, communication technology may have the same proactive effect on women as did religion. When women think they are alone they behave badly. when women know they are being watched their behaviour improves dramatically.
In the meantime ofcourse, there will be damage done in the form of innocent male lives destroyed (and innocent childrens lives harmed too), but we've got to keep talking and communicating with each other on internet blogs and forums, and penetrate the mainstream media whenever we can.
The current situation will come to an end, it has to. what we find ourselves in at the moment is unsustainable. When it comes to an end the majority will know the truth because it will be everywhere they turn.
Is it because the more freedom you give women, the more destructive they and their leeches become?
I don't think it's because women have too much freedom. I think it's because of a neurotic reaction to freedom -- some women feel insecure so they retreat into resentment and phony outrage, demanding special treatment and unjustified victim status. And it's also because our society refuses to view women as full adults, infantilizing women instead of holding them just as accountable for their actions as a man.
This situation isn't the inevitable result of allowing women to vote and work, and nothing has gone wrong that can't be fixed with a little common sense and return to the principle that protecting the innocent is always more important than punishing the guilty. We need to return to the basic values upon which our system was founded.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again --
This isn't aboutwomen in control, controlling women - or male's lack of control of women.
All these 'equal rights' and such are just a smoke screen for the real deal -
Men controlling other men through the use of women.
Males in power give females the right to make false accusations, then excuse it.
Males give 'police protection' to female law breakers.
Male Judges decide a female rapist is "too pretty to go to prison".
"Too pretty to go to prison" is as anti feminist as it gets, yet feminists kept their mouths shut about it because it serves their purpose.
Sgt. Mom said...
I've said it before, and I'll say it again --
This isn't aboutwomen in control, controlling women - or male's lack of control of women.
All these 'equal rights' and
such are just a smoke screen for the real deal -
Men controlling other men through the use of women.I think its no coincidence that this statement has come from a female.
The reality is that it is women (and now their extension, feminism), that trys to control men through other men, which has gotten out of control in the west.
I agree men may be excusing it (because they have an instinct to get competition 'out of the picture'), but they dont oppose women for fear of the consequences, and one of those fears is of being outcast. being outcast is a lonely place for a man. and for those that have been falsely accused it is also a dangerous place. Most men simply tow the line and do as they are expected.
Its women that call the shots in the liberal west, not men.
I'll tell you what I think it's has caused it -- and it doesn't exactly fit the MRA metanarrative. It's part of the same phenomeonon by which local TV news scares people half to death over a pending snow storm. It wasn't that way 30 years ago. Our mass news media has become so hysterical about everything in order to gain market share -- you'd think there are child predators lurking from every corner.
Males have an enhanced sex drive -- any reasonable person knows this. Every hysterical news story about a child predator feeds into the hysteria and foments a distrust of males. We now have entire shows dedicated to entertaining Americans based on catching some miswired man who, for whatever miswired reason, wants to have sex with a teenage girl -- his life is destroyed on national television (and the lives of his family members are destroyed, too) just so some network can sell soap. This is 21st Century "entertainment."
What's the result? We have become a culture that eschews nuance. We have lost all ability to discern, to be reasonable, to understand that most things aren't black and white, that most people aren't evil and very few men won't rape teenage girls. But, you see, it's easier to pre-judge than to trust. I blame a mass news media interested in sensationalism, which fits hand-in-glove with morally superior feminism and chivalrous men ever eager to help protect everyone from the bad men.
I basically agree, although I beg to differ with the claim that men have a sex drive that is more enhanced than that of women.
But media sensationalism is a huge factor in this, which is in lockstep with authoritarian government grasping for more and more power and eroding rights, and feminist fearmongering.
Fear->bad laws and loss of rights->degradation of family and legal structures->more crime->fear
Re: the sex drive -- I am puzzled how anyone can disagree with that since study after study after study shows that's one of testosterone's effects.
The sex drive of men is not stronger than that of women, Pierce.
Mens sex drives darwf that of the women.
Women seek security, to the same degree men seek sex.
sgt Mom says
"All these 'equal rights' and such are just a smoke screen for the real deal -
Men controlling other men through the use of women."
ANON says I have also contemplated that theory.
Doesn't Rudov have a whole book about the female libido?
The only 'studies' about human behavior I would ever buy into would have to be done by an disinterested, impartial third party -
...which would be some different species that gave a crap what made humans tick.
No human being observing other human beings can possibly dissociate their own prejudices, preconceived bias and myopic impressions and projections enough to make observations about other human beings.
Anyone claiming to be an 'expert' on any sort of human behavior is full of crap -- every last one of them.
ANON says I have also contemplated that theory.
I call it my 'Rooster in a hen house' theory...I have long suspected war and prison have more to do with men trying to eliminate one another than anything else.
I think it's why men do not welcome or accept women into the military, and why men don't send women -especially attractive ones - to prison.
Even now, with "women's issues" rammed down their throats for three decades, I never hear men complain about women not registering with selective service or serving in combat, and hardly a peep about sending women to prison.
I don't hear 'feminists' complain about this apparent "last frontier", of course, because true 'feminists' never really walk the walk --they 'theorize' all day long about how women should be able to men's work, but no true feminist gets her hands dirty actually doing it.
In June, 2005, an 11-year-old boy was lost in the Utah wilderness for four days. During that time, he stayed on the trail. He saw people searching for him but deliberately hid from them, afraid someone might “steal” him. Eventually, the unfortunate game of hide-and-seek ended and he was found.
Q:"Every hysterical news story about a child predator feeds into the hysteria and foments a distrust of males. We now have entire shows dedicated to entertaining Americans based on catching some miswired man who, for whatever miswired reason, wants to have sex with a teenage girl -- his life is destroyed on national television"
The thing is --these shows target men, and men only.
This type of 'gotcha' formula was set up a man to entrap other men (a man I suspect knows how to successfully go after 'predators' like J Edgar Hoover knew how to ferret out homosexuals --it takes one to know one).
When that woman in California recently raped and murdered a little girl, everyone got lathered up about her being a Sunday School teacher, and began slamming religion --while actually defending the myth that "women rarely do this".
I worked in a high school where lesbian staff members had affairs with students - not all of them gay. It was blatant, everyone knew it.
Never heard a peep about it.
If a male teacher, hetero or homosexual was chicken hawking on high school kids, it would be national news and he would never see life outside prison again.
I won't get drawn into a debate one way or the other, but I don't believe men are more 'enhanced' sexually than women.
I believe the genders have widely divergent outlooks on the same thing --men's sexuality being less socially acceptable than women's.
Personal observation: men claim they prefer women who are sexually high octane, but women who actually are, are treated very badly. I can't think of a single gender specific word for a promiscuous man, but there are endless such words for women.
...but I don't want to be called any of those names, so I'll end this discussion and say no more about it.
Just food for thought.
Here is something I found that may interest some of you
Changes in human sex ratio and chemical contamination
Excerpt from Our Stolen Future here, reading in part:
'Several researchers, however, have reported apparent recent declines in the proportion of male births, in the US, Canada, Denmark and the Netherlands. These declines have been very small but statistically significant. Fewer boys are being born than would be expected on the basis of the recent historical worldwide average.
In addition to these general declines, several specific cases have been reported involving sharp alterations in the sex ratio of people because of industrial accident, occupational exposure, or because of exposure to air pollution from incinerators. For example, in Russia pesticide workers exposed to elevated dioxin and dioxin-like compounds are less likely to father boys. A similar pattern is observed in men exposed to a mixture of PCBs in Taiwan. Both these studies report no effect on the sex ratio of infants born to exposed women. The Taiwanese study also suggests that exposure before the age of 20 is necessary for there to be an effect on sex ratio.'
One of the co-authors is scheduled to present at the 2009 ideaCity Conference in Toronto, Ontario in June of this year.
http://www.amazon.com/Our-Stolen-Future-Threatening-Intelligence/dp/0452274141
http://www.ideacityonline.com/presenters/john-peterson-myers
http://www.ideacityonline.com/node/53
The enhanced male sex drive isn't open to question any more than the earth revolves around the sun. It is scientific fact, and one's opinion won't change it.
Sgt. Mom - "I won't get drawn into a debate one way or the other, but I don't believe men are more 'enhanced' sexually than women."
I'm getting into this discussion rather late, but what I believe that some are doing is conflagrating sexual desire with sexual drive.
While they may seem to be almost to subtle to fully differentiate, they are two distinctly different things. The former is th emotional element, while the latter is the physical element.
It is often the case that women have every bit as great a desire for sex, perhaps even more than a man; but, only during the time around when she is ovulating will she have a physical drive for sex the way men typically do.
This plays out in the observable increase in women's sexual aggression (it's the clinical term used to express increased sexual effort/participation) during that time.
During her non-ovulating times, a woman may very much desire sex, but she is less likely to initiate sexual contact than she is during ovulation.
Quote: "The enhanced male sex drive isn't open to question any more than the earth revolves around the sun. It is scientific fact, and one's opinion won't change it."
The enhanced male sex drive isn't open to question any more than the earth is flat.
It is scientific fact, and one's opinion won't change it.
Sgt. Mom said...
"I call it my 'Rooster in a hen house' theory...I have long suspected war and prison have more to do with men trying to eliminate one another than anything else."And there we have it, gentlemen.
This is the reason why men should not be listening to women.
I suspect the main reason behind most war's that have ever been fought, is that women demand better living standards from their men, and then the men march off into another country and try to steal that countries land or resources. Thats the real reason, not because men just want to kill each other.
For example, lets take iraq.
The US and the UK are stealing/securing our oil supply. What is oil used for? To produce luxury goods. Which sex consumes luxury goods? Women.
The next time you watch the television, make a count of the number of adverts that are targeted at men and a count of the number targeted at women.
So no, its not just about men killing each other at all. Do you think the englishmen that fought and died in france during the last centurys great wars did it because they wanted to see their pals dead, so that they could go back home and take their woman?
'Rooster in a hen house theory', what a disgusting and offensive comment.
Do you actually believe what your saying, or is this just another female ruse to remove the spotlight from yourselves?
Did you know that when the jews were expelled from germany, its was german women that descended on their belongings like vultures, clothes, furniture, jewellery.
Sgt. Mom said...
"Even now, with "women's issues" rammed down their throats for three decades, I never hear men complain about women not registering with selective service or serving in combat, and hardly a peep about sending women to prison.Thats because as has already been pointed out in this thread, men are manipulated from birth into ideas of chivalry. They dont want to see their little 'princess' hurt.
I on the other hand welcome women going into combat, but female only squadrens/commands. No male soldier should have his life put at risk for the sake of political correctness.
Hell, you want the oil/luxury goods, you go kill and be killed for them.
Sgt. Mom said...
"This type of 'gotcha' formula was set up a man to entrap other men"For the titilation of females.
Lets be honest, women love to see men humilated, and if that involves under-age sex note: not the same as sex with sexually immature children) women can then claim the moral highground and thats even better.
Sgt. Mom said...
"(a man I suspect knows how to successfully go after 'predators' like J Edgar Hoover knew how to ferret out homosexuals --it takes one to know one)."Wow. In this thread, you have shown us all who you really are.
SteveUK, so much of this theorizing about men competing with one another for women, etc. -- I find offensive and without the ring of truth. The word "catty" is never applied to men, for good reason. The way some people portray men -- willing to kill other men or steal women from each other, why you'd think we were -- women!
Archivist,
Women shine a light on mens (violence by proxy) behaviour, knowing full well that it draws attention away from their own actions.
Its the oldest trick in the book.
"Males in power give females the right to make false accusations, then excuse it."
Women are the majority of voters, thus women put those men in power. Also, radical feminists have heavily influenced legislation.
"Males give 'police protection' to female law breakers."
Those males operate in fear of censure from radical feminist groups.
"Male Judges decide a female rapist is 'too pretty to go to prison'"
The courts also have been heavily influenced and pressured by radical feminists. Male judges can be dethroned on just one small slip, at the behest of angry feminist groups.
Sorry Mom, your attempt to portray this as a men-on-men problem is laughable.
SteveUK said
"I suspect the main reason behind most war's that have ever been fought, is that women demand better living standards from their men..."
No need to go to that length to 'justify' things. Women have long goaded men to do battle, across all cultures and throughout history. Also, women shun and berate men who they perceive to be 'cowards'...like guys who fail to show up for wars, who evade the draft, etc.
Finally, extensive analyses have shown that women leaders throughout history have not been one whit more shy than men to do battle with foreign powers, and in the process send tens of thousands of MEN to their deaths.
In Sgt Mom's world, as in that of many women, everything is neatly explained by this one simple concept: "It's all the men's fault!"
Quote: "I suspect the main reason behind most war's that have ever been fought, is that women demand better living standards from their men,"
The Viet Nam war, during which *I* served, did nothing to promote better living standards for women. All it did was kill off 52,000 good men for no good reason.
Quote"
"(a man I suspect knows how to successfully go after 'predators' like J Edgar Hoover knew how to ferret out homosexuals --it takes one to know one)."Wow. In this thread, you have shown us all who you really are."
Little history lesson here,UK - J. Edgar Hoover was a closet homosexual who amassed untouchable power by blackmailing homosexuals in power, or threatening to accuse men in power of being homosexual.
The now disgraced Mark Foley, along with John Walsh, pushed through the greatest un-Constitutional boondoggle law - under cover of darkness with no imput form the public - the Adam Walsh Act - while hitting on underaged assistants.
It has been suggested that Xavier Von Erck (self-titled name)head of Perverted Justice, the guy who formulated the GOTCHA show It Take A Predator, is pretty much in the same league. Mr. Von Erck steadfastly refuses to allow law enforcement access to his own computers.
While you may have a very good point about the predator show titillating women (do men not watch the show as well?) I still point out the fact that the show was a male conception, organized by men, produced by men, Chris Hansen certainly seems to enjoy his role in it.
In the early days of the women's movement, they used to point out "women are their own worst enemy" when it came to getting rights.
I think the time has come for men to look at other men's roles in harming male causes and calling them on it.
That's a factor the women's movement never had to deal with - there were no women in power roles keeping other women down.
That's just complete BS to suggest men in power have suddenly turned into fearful little quizzlings, bullied about by feminists.
That's just utter BS.
The Sugar Daddies behind Feminism:
The "Patriarchy" is the Plutocracy and it's Funding Feminism! When big changes happen, follow the money. Feminist funding comes from big foundations. Google "Women's Studies" and Rockefeller Foundation and you'll get 132,000 links. Google "Women's Studies" and Ford Foundation and you'll get 217,000 links. Carnegie Foundation yields 197,000 links. They frequently acknowledge foundation funding and expose a massive social engineering program designed to reduce population, emasculate men and undermine the institutions of marriage & family. Yet, horror to tell, these foundations are dominated by men, not women. Feminism, ostensibly dedicated to "smashing the Patriarchy," is bankrolled by the Patriarchy. * A 1990 report by Women and Foundations/Corporate Philanthropy found that 23% of foundations surveyed had no women or people of color as trustees. Furthermore, women of color made up only 5% of all foundation trustees. * 71% of foundation members are male. A similar bias exists among foundation directors. At 14%, women are better represented among chief executive officers of foundations, but they tend to head the smaller foundations. The largest independent foundations are headed by men.
Sgt. Mom,
you're simply doing nothing other than victim blaming. You say "men" as if we are all one with those at the top of the pile, and as if a given individual guy would mistreat himself.
I don't think you 'get it' Norm.
This isn't 'victim blaming'.
We're ALL being duped.
Quote:
In Sgt Mom's world, as in that of many women, everything is neatly explained by this one simple concept: "It's all the men's fault!"
You don't speak for me, Norm.
I come from a family of intelligent thinking MEN. MEN who taught me to look beyond the simple minded 'truth' we are all lead to believe.
You might spend more time researching what's REALLY going on in this world instead of heckling me.
If you can refute anything I've posted, I more than welcome you to do so.
You are not qualified to even begin to speak for "Sgt. Mom's world", or anyone else's but your own.
___________
PrisonPlanet:
In a later conversation, Rockefeller asked Russo what he thought women's liberation was about. Russo's response that he thought it was about the right to work and receive equal pay as men, just as they had won the right to vote, caused Rockefeller to laughingly retort, "You're an idiot! Let me tell you what that was about, we the Rockefeller's funded that, we funded women's lib, we're the one's who got all of the newspapers and television - the Rockefeller Foundation."
Rockefeller told Russo of two primary reasons why the elite bankrolled women's lib, one because before women's lib the bankers couldn't tax half the population and two because it allowed them to get children in school at an earlier age, enabling them to be indoctrinated into accepting the state as the primary family, breaking up the traditional family model.
This revelation dovetails previous admissions on behalf of feminist pioneer Gloria Steinem (pictured) that the CIA bankrolled Ms. Magazine as part of the same agenda of breaking up traditional family models.
Rockefeller was often keen to stress his idea that "the people have to be ruled" by an elite and that one of the tools of such power was population reduction, that there were "too many people in the world," and world population numbers should be reduced by at least half.
____________________________
You can chalk this up to "Tin Foil Hat Wearing Conspiracy Theorists", but my Grandfather predicted this stuff-and more- when I was just a kid. He died in 1974, cursing the Rockefellers...
"This isn't 'victim blaming'.
We're ALL being duped"
how did I know someone would say that?
Just shuffle everything around and confuse the issue...then we can all say, "doggone it, "they" fooled us again!" In fact that is the generic claim that the majority of feminists will have to fall back on to escape social oprobrium, in the future, when all this blows up in their face.
They are being left a dangerous legacy by McKinnon at all, old biddies who will not be around to face the consequences when the fascist regime is overthrown.
should say, "McKinnon et. al."
True Norm. They must have forgotten the words of a very wise being; That which you sow, you shall also reap.
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/][img]http://sunkomutors.net/img-add/euro2.jpg[/img][/url]
[b]software programs for sale, [url=http://sunkomutors.net/]nero 8[/url]
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/][/url] office outlook 2003 pops up and wants to install autocad electrical symbols
10 Titanium Pro [url=http://sunkomutors.net/]microsoft office 2003 basic[/url] adobe acrobat 9 pro compare
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/]free purchase software[/url] non profit adobe software
[url=http://sunkomutors.net/]freeware for windows xp all[/url] free online shop software
sales order software [url=http://sunkomutors.net/]discount adobe software for[/b]
A complete newbie to forex trading, I am having difficulties figuring out where to look for information, but also what exactly to look for. Commodities? Bank quarterly results?
[url=http://forexrobot-review.info]click here[/url]
Post a Comment