quote:More to the point, none of what you said speaks to the relative numbers of assaults against males and females. It may very well be the case, that assault against boys is a serious issue. But that doesn't mean that there isn't more assault directed against girls.
I have no doubt that women and girls are more likely to be assaulted overall than men and boys. I simply don't think that is a reasonable justification for denying women and girls the opportunities open to boys. Vulnerability to assault is not a uniquely feminine problem.
Even if it were, the solution to sexual assaults is not to discriminate against women.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something doesn't jibe here. I live near a small city (approx 90,000) and when the city court gives someone community service they give that person a letter of instruction and a list of more than 100 local organizations they can go to work with. They get their hours logged and their paperwork signed to take back to the judge. It can range from Angels of Assissi to Habitat for Humanity.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Something doesn't jibe here. I live near a small city (approx 90,000) and when the city court gives someone community service they give that person a letter of instruction and a list of more than 100 local organizations they can go to work with. They get their hours logged and their paperwork signed to take back to the judge. It can range from Angels of Assissi to Habitat for Humanity.
Yes, this is the way it normally works. That's why I keep saying that I think people are stretching an unreasonably long way to find a justification for this.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... we are talking about US law, which treats people as adults after the age of 18.
Maybe you're talking about US law.
I was talking about managing risk of sexual assault between adults and youth.
Sorry, I thought you were making a point that was relevant to Belle's daughter being denied the option of community service to expunge a speeding ticket from her record.
If you are simply talking about managing the risk of sexual assault between adults and youth, the groups I work with are all coming to the consensus that drawing the line between your 2 and 3 was a mistake and are now moving to requiring that there are always 2 adult leaders present, regardless of gender. The idea is to remove the opportunity for assault by making sure no adult is ever alone with a youth.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: *nod* That's what the Boy Scouts do.
That was the policy when I was assistant scout master back in the mid 90s. It's also now the official policy in the LDS primary for their to be two teachers in every class. This is causing me headaches as Primary president since we are having trouble getting even 1 teacher for each class.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Flying Fish: Something doesn't jibe here. I live near a small city (approx 90,000) and when the city court gives someone community service they give that person a letter of instruction and a list of more than 100 local organizations they can go to work with. They get their hours logged and their paperwork signed to take back to the judge. It can range from Angels of Assissi to Habitat for Humanity.
This is the way it was for me when I was in high school and received a tresspassing violation. I was able to make a deal to do community service, and was able to choose from a list of organizations. I ended up volunteering at Goodwill.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nod* That's the big thing that led me to conclude that casual judicial sexism was the much more likely explanation for this than some other, more justifiable reason. I'm just a layman on the topic, so I could very well be wrong-but I think it's an unlikely municipality that doesn't have some setup in place to interface community service and minor violations of the law.
In fact, I'll just go out on a limb and make a guess. I'm not committed to this, but here's a possible explanation: the judge is irritated because females can get out of speeding tickets by poppin' the tears, and guys can't-thus this is a bit of equity in his eyes.
I mean, I would almost be willing to say, absent knowing other facts about this situation, that that guess is more likely than this community not having the kind of setup FlyFish has described. There being organizations that help communities basically in every community in the country, and those organizations having ties with local government everywhere they exist, and needing help where they exist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: *nod* That's what the Boy Scouts do.
That was the policy when I was assistant scout master back in the mid 90s. It's also now the official policy in the LDS primary for their to be two teachers in every class. This is causing me headaches as Primary president since we are having trouble getting even 1 teacher for each class.
Nursery too. There are also one way windows that allow people outside to see in as well.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: *nod* That's what the Boy Scouts do.
That was the policy when I was assistant scout master back in the mid 90s. It's also now the official policy in the LDS primary for their to be two teachers in every class. This is causing me headaches as Primary president since we are having trouble getting even 1 teacher for each class.
Nursery too. There are also one way windows that allow people outside to see in as well.
Yes, Nursery is part of the primary. We don't have two way windows in our building. That's the very least of my concerns about what we don't have in our building.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are also one way windows that allow people outside to see in as well.
While those, or revere-mounted peep holes are present in many LDS buildings, it is not policy. Our very nice building doesn't have them. I think they exist more so that parents can peek in to see if their kid is crying than to make sure no shenanigans are happening.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I called an organization today that advertises for traffic school that is court approved. They told me the traffic school can be used to remove points from a license, but each court makes its own decision as to whether or not to accept traffic school as an alternative. They are approved for Alabama courts, but the individual judge has to assign traffic school.
So there is an easy, built in system that costs the community nothing (the offender pays the cost for traffic school) that he could assign equally to males and females but he chooses not to. Instead he assigns trash pick up on the highway to boys, and according to my neighbor the cop, the reason it's only males is because there are no female officers to supervise.
The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
I've been trying to clarify information today.
I think I'm going to ask to be put on the city council agenda and address the council over the issue. And I may call the ACLU. I'm debating about turning it into a big media affair.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: 1. (Male)Priest supervising male youth 2. Male volunteer supervising female youth 3. Male volunteer supervising male youth 4. Female volunteer supervising male youth 5. Female volunteer supervising female youth
I know this will derail the thread yet further, but I think its unfair to put Priests at the top of this list of people likely to abuse young men and boys. Catholic Priests sex scandals have certainly aroused more media attention than others, but I don't think there is evidence to suggests Priests are actually more likely to abuse youth than other men.
The Catholic Church undoubtedly made a lot of serious mistakes in handling sexual abuse cases, including cover ups and transfers that made it possible for individual pedophiles (or technically Ephebophiles) to assault more young people. But that does not imply that Priest as a whole are more likely to abuse youth in their care than other men.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There are also one way windows that allow people outside to see in as well.
While those, or revere-mounted peep holes are present in many LDS buildings, it is not policy. Our very nice building doesn't have them. I think they exist more so that parents can peek in to see if their kid is crying than to make sure no shenanigans are happening.
I imagine both things are reasons for it.
-----
Rabbit: Primary? Really? I don't think I was ever beholden to the Primary leadership while in Nursery. Maybe I was, and just didn't know it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit: Primary? Really? I don't think I was ever beholden to the Primary leadership while in Nursery. Maybe I was, and just didn't know it.
Yes, you were in the primary even if you didn't know it. Its unquestionable. Nursery is part of the primary. Its been that way for at least 2 decades.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Catholic Priests sex scandals have certainly aroused more media attention than others, but I don't think there is evidence to suggests Priests are actually more likely to abuse youth than other men.
&
quote:But that does not imply that Priest(s) as a whole are more likely to abuse youth in their care than other men.
These are actually two different statements, in one noteworthy respect: the priesthood is an occupation (calling, career, etc.) which must be pursued deliberately and places an individual in a position of authority and trust over young people, potentially in a one-on-one environment. Given that, priests - like other roles which must be pursued and have degrees of power over others, like you say in your second quote - are not to be compared simply to men in general, I don't think.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit: Primary? Really? I don't think I was ever beholden to the Primary leadership while in Nursery. Maybe I was, and just didn't know it.
Yes, you were in the primary even if you didn't know it. Its unquestionable. Nursery is part of the primary. Its been that way for at least 2 decades.
You're not the boss of me!
Especially since I've been released from Nursery.
If you should happen to move into my ward (which admittedly seems highly unlikely), expect that to change so fast your head will spin.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I called an organization today that advertises for traffic school that is court approved. They told me the traffic school can be used to remove points from a license, but each court makes its own decision as to whether or not to accept traffic school as an alternative. They are approved for Alabama courts, but the individual judge has to assign traffic school.
So there is an easy, built in system that costs the community nothing (the offender pays the cost for traffic school) that he could assign equally to males and females but he chooses not to. Instead he assigns trash pick up on the highway to boys, and according to my neighbor the cop, the reason it's only males is because there are no female officers to supervise.
The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
I've been trying to clarify information today.
I think I'm going to ask to be put on the city council agenda and address the council over the issue. And I may call the ACLU. I'm debating about turning it into a big media affair.
quote:Catholic Priests sex scandals have certainly aroused more media attention than others, but I don't think there is evidence to suggests Priests are actually more likely to abuse youth than other men.
&
quote:But that does not imply that Priest(s) as a whole are more likely to abuse youth in their care than other men.
These are actually two different statements, in one noteworthy respect: the priesthood is an occupation (calling, career, etc.) which must be pursued deliberately and places an individual in a position of authority and trust over young people, potentially in a one-on-one environment. Given that, priests - like other roles which must be pursued and have degrees of power over others, like you say in your second quote - are not to be compared simply to men in general, I don't think.
Rakeesh,
I'm not seeing the distinction you are between the two statements. It's certainly not something I intended. Both were looking at the likelihood that a man (whether Priest or non-Priest) who was supervising youth would abuse them
If your argument is that Priest's should be held to a higher standard than random men, you will get no argument from me. If your argument is that when a trusted religious leader abuses a kid, its more serious than when a random guy abuses a kid, you also won't get any disagreement from me. But this was not the context of Mucus's original post nor my response.
Mucus was speculating that a there was a greater risk of abuse when a Priest was supervising young men than when a random male was supervising young men. He thought that difference was significant enough to make it a separate category. I think that reflects an unfair prejudice which is not supported by the data.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if it's unsupported by the data, so I'll agree that it might be an unfair prejudice.
However, I do know that there has been a whole helluva lot of work done by the group leading the priests to stop there being any reliable data on that problem...so that rather puts us at an impasse on that particular issue.
ETA: To be clear, I don't think you intended the distinction-I just meant to point out that there was something different about people who seek out positions of authority and people in general. I didn't mean to suggest you didn't recognize there was a difference-my bad.
posted
If I am recalling correctly, there is no reliable data about the percentage of priests who abuse. It is suspected to be slightly above that of the general male population due to various issues and is usually estimated at between 2% and 6%. The USCCB estimates that about 4% of US priests since 1950 have been accused.
Also, most of the victims are post-pubescent boys rather than young children.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is no reliable data on the rate of child/teenage sexual assault, period. What data there is (numbers of accusations and assorted studies) indicates the rate for priest is slightly higher than the overall rate per-capita but some what lower than the rate for men. That data is far from conclusive.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not suggesting that absent impediments the data would be conclusive one way or another. I'm just pointing out that when there is a lengthy, documented history of a group throwing up lots of roadblocks, worldwide, to discovering the kinds of things that would really start to give us a complete picture, well-in that situation talking about what the data supports at all in a neutral way is a bit unfair. Because to bring in 'the data' in that way is to do so as a rejection of accusations against the group.
I don't think you can reasonably do that, say that the data doesn't support charges against priests in defense of criticisms of the priests, when the priests themselves (or their leadership, anyway) are often working really hard to ensure the data doesn't get out.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, from what I understand, you are absolutely correct about attempts to gather data being hindered by the hierarchy but such data is very hard to get anyway.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not suggesting that absent impediments the data would be conclusive one way or another. I'm just pointing out that when there is a lengthy, documented history of a group throwing up lots of roadblocks, worldwide, to discovering the kinds of things that would really start to give us a complete picture, well-in that situation talking about what the data supports at all in a neutral way is a bit unfair. Because to bring in 'the data' in that way is to do so as a rejection of accusations against the group.
I don't think you can reasonably do that, say that the data doesn't support charges against priests in defense of criticisms of the priests, when the priests themselves (or their leadership, anyway) are often working really hard to ensure the data doesn't get out.
But the Catholic church isn't unique is this regard. The Boy Scouts of America (another group that has had numerous sex scandals) has also done a great deal to cover up the extent of the sexual assault problem. Sex abuse scandals are popping up essentially everywhere where adult men have had authority over teenage boys. From what data there is, there is no reason to believe that Priests are more likely to abuse young boys than other men. That data is flawed and it may well be that when all the data comes to light the conclusion will be different, but its also possible that when all the data comes to light we will find that Priest are less likely to abuse not more. Making a judgement in the absence of reliable data is prejudice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Another thought -- there's quite a bit of liability involved with working with youth.
In order to work with the Boy Scouts, I have to take periodic "youth protection" training and jump through some other hoops. I don't have any personal knowledge, but it would not surprise me if there's a lot more involved in being qualified to work with youth in the government.
So, it might be possible for the city or county to have female employees and still not have anybody that can supervise teen girls.
I still don't think this is relevant. If the government has to pay for someone to supervise people doing community service, it doesn't matter whether it transfers existing employees to the job or highers new people. The expense is the same.
If there are X dollars available for programs that allow offenders to expunge their records, the choice is never between
Spend X dollars on male programs.
Spend X dollars on female programs or
burn the money
There are always many other options that would not be discriminatory and wouldn't amount to "if everyone can't have it, nobody can".
Not true, because of two major things.
1. Someone else would have to do their job, as supervising them would take most of their day. It sure wouldn't make doing their jobs easier.
2. Most people don't know this, but working with youths, especially in a government supervisory position, requires special training and classes, all to make sure that the person supervising them provides a safe work environment, and to shield them from legal action if something were to go wrong. This is without a doubt an additional expense, both in cash and in time invested.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I called an organization today that advertises for traffic school that is court approved. They told me the traffic school can be used to remove points from a license, but each court makes its own decision as to whether or not to accept traffic school as an alternative. They are approved for Alabama courts, but the individual judge has to assign traffic school.
So there is an easy, built in system that costs the community nothing (the offender pays the cost for traffic school) that he could assign equally to males and females but he chooses not to. Instead he assigns trash pick up on the highway to boys, and according to my neighbor the cop, the reason it's only males is because there are no female officers to supervise.
The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
I've been trying to clarify information today.
I think I'm going to ask to be put on the city council agenda and address the council over the issue. And I may call the ACLU. I'm debating about turning it into a big media affair.
Good for you. I agree, this isn't fair.
My only disagreement is with the idea that thinking it may not be worth pursuing automatically makes someone sexist, particularly if the person stating that is male. I can think of a lot of things that I find are not fair, but that I don't think they are worth fighting about most of the time.
I save my energy to tilt at the windmills that are closer to my heart. If this one is close to yours, and you feel that it is worth the effort, go for it. I hope you get the inequity resolved.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:My only disagreement is with the idea that thinking it may not be worth pursuing automatically makes someone sexist, particularly if the person stating that is male.
quote:Instead he assigns trash pick up on the highway to boys, and according to my neighbor the cop, the reason it's only males is because there are no female officers to supervise.
The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
I really can't see any good reason why male police officers could not be trusted to supervise a mixed gender group picking up trash on the side of the highway. We have male school teachers supervising mixed gender groups all the time. If police officers can't be trusted to supervise young girls, why should we believe they can be trusted to supervise young men. Excluding young women from this task is outright sexism.
Denying young women opportunities is not an acceptable way to protect them from sexual assault.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I really can't see any good reason why male police officers could not be trusted to supervise a mixed gender group picking up trash on the side of the highway. We have male school teachers supervising mixed gender groups all the time. If police officers can't be trusted to supervise young girls, why should we believe they can be trusted to supervise young men. Excluding young women from this task is outright sexism.
This is also a yes. I can never figure out when society thinks its OK to have one person of indeterminate gender to supervise a group and other times when you need same gender or multiple people. There seem to be rules about it but I can't figure out what they are, or even why they are.
1. Someone else would have to do their job, as supervising them would take most of their day. It sure wouldn't make doing their jobs easier.
2. Most people don't know this, but working with youths, especially in a government supervisory position, requires special training and classes, all to make sure that the person supervising them provides a safe work environment, and to shield them from legal action if something were to go wrong. This is without a doubt an additional expense, both in cash and in time invested.
I have no idea what part of my statement is contradicted by this. Yes, administering a program takes resources. Nothing I said suggested it didn't. Administering the program for males only, takes resources. Administering a parallel program from females would take resources. Those aren't the only two options for spending public resources.
Are you saying there is no possible way the resources currently being used for the male only program might be used for a program open to both genders? Are you saying that the public has to choose between a program for only one gender or no program at all?
Also, your point 2 is irrelevant. Restrictions about working with minors do not apply. Belle's daughter has reached the age of majority.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not suggesting that absent impediments the data would be conclusive one way or another. I'm just pointing out that when there is a lengthy, documented history of a group throwing up lots of roadblocks, worldwide, to discovering the kinds of things that would really start to give us a complete picture, well-in that situation talking about what the data supports at all in a neutral way is a bit unfair. Because to bring in 'the data' in that way is to do so as a rejection of accusations against the group.
I don't think you can reasonably do that, say that the data doesn't support charges against priests in defense of criticisms of the priests, when the priests themselves (or their leadership, anyway) are often working really hard to ensure the data doesn't get out.
But the Catholic church isn't unique is this regard. The Boy Scouts of America (another group that has had numerous sex scandals) has also done a great deal to cover up the extent of the sexual assault problem. Sex abuse scandals are popping up essentially everywhere where adult men have had authority over teenage boys. From what data there is, there is no reason to believe that Priests are more likely to abuse young boys than other men. That data is flawed and it may well be that when all the data comes to light the conclusion will be different, but its also possible that when all the data comes to light we will find that Priest are less likely to abuse not more. Making a judgement in the absence of reliable data is prejudice.
Here is (for those interested) a very good article by one of the foremost experts on the subject of sexual abuse by priests that talks about why priests have some factors in whether they become abusers that are not the same for the population in general.
posted
I would emphasize that the original estimates were
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: ... off-the-cuff ... I'd not wedded to those guesses ...
. That said, Rakeesh basically said what I would have. There is obviously uncertainty when reasoning about a group that is systemically covering up evidence. But when the stuff that actually got out is as bad as it is, I wouldn't take on the additional risk for no gain.
quote:Originally posted by Belle: The age of my daughter has nothing to do with it. We were told that males under 18 and over 18 were allowed to do the community service.
This is unclear to me. But if it is the case that even adult females are barred from this, then it pretty much should be a slam-dunk. Jia you.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think you can reasonably do that, say that the data doesn't support charges against priests in defense of criticisms of the priests, when the priests themselves (or their leadership, anyway) are often working really hard to ensure the data doesn't get out.
I don't think I've even questioned the validity of charges made against any priests or their leadership. I even stated that I felt the Catholic Church had made major errors.
My only claim it is unfair to condemn Priests who have not been accused of any wrong doing simply because they are Priests. I object to guilt by association. Both the Catholic Church and the Boy Scouts of America have been involved in covering up sexual abuse. That does not make it fair to expect every Priest and every Scoutmaster of being a sexual predator.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hobbes and Kwea, I get the impression you have taken some of my comments as personal attacks. For the record, I haven't found anything either one of you has said to be sexist. Neither one of you has said that Belle should not have been upset about this or that you thought the Judges behavior was acceptable.
I'm guilty of hyperbole. There is enough injustice in the world that no one can be outraged about every instance of it. We all pick our own battles and I see no problem with that. Its possible to recognize and injustice and respect someone else passion to fix it without feeling that passion yourself. My criticism was only intended against those who think Belle is being overly emotional about a trivial issue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... That does not make it fair to expect every Priest and every Scoutmaster of being a sexual predator.
Ranking priests as being higher risk than normal males doesn't mean that we expect *every* priest to be a sexual predator anymore than ranking males as higher risk than females means that we expect *every* male to be a sexual predator.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
First off Rabbit, I appreciate your clarification: class move and good for the discussion.
I was actually, at least partially referring to you but in reference to Belle's husband rather than myself. I don't agree with his position but I hardly think it's sexist. His position seemed to be: "you can't do anything about it so no use getting upset". Besides not being one of those people that control if I'm upset I disagree because Belle is proving you can do something about it. But being wrong isn't being sexist. Telling someone not to get upset about something that is sexist isn't necessarily sexist. Assuming he's consistent across subjects it's just his outlook on dealing with problems.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
