Because this part of the discussion was initiated by someone was afraid that he would be arrested for indecent exposure changing in the men’s locker room, that “[w]e’re under suspicion just because we’re men” and “I can’t even smile at children when I’m out in public without my family. Women look at me like I’m a criminal. Yeah, I’m talking to you, every woman under the age of 50 …”
Hey no question males are viewed as more threatening and females less so, by both genders. You may actually want to read the actual hurricane article. It wasn’t just historical data. The hypothesis was then tested on college students, not Archie Bunkers. Males and females both judged hurricanes differing only in the gender of the name as less threatening if female and would be less likely to plan on taking preparations or evacuating if it was named Alexandra rather than Alexander or just “a hurricane.” Biases exist and usually we are not even conscious of them. Funny that you have it explicitly (think its naive to not view a man smiling at your child at your side as threat) and yet think that bias is something that mainly is in the province of the Archie Bunkers.
But if all women treat you like a criminal and we other males do not experience that … well it says something other than that all women treat all men as criminals. Maybe it just says that men who think smiling at a kid is against a social norm will act odd when they do it and get a withdrawal reaction. Not sure.
Its kind of blowing my mind that I even have to explain this, but okay then:
Hurricanes do not actually have gender. They are assigned names from a list that rotates on a six year cycle, with names that alternate male, female, male, female. Therefore it is fundamentally irrational to consider a male-named storm more threatening than a female one.
Humans, OTOH, do actually have gender. And human males are vastly more likely than human females to commit violent crimes.
So–still following?–to find human males more threatening than human females is quite rational, unlike finding male-named storms more threatening than female-named storms, which is irrational. Got it?
Along similar lines, I read or heard the tip years ago (when I was a new parent) that you should teach kids to look for an older woman (someone who “looks like a grandma”) to ask for help if they get lost in a mall or something. I’ve taught this rule of thumb to all my kids, though it has never come up in practice. I suppose this is sexist too? :rolleyes:
I was on the London Underground with a male friend and a toddler wandered across the aisle to him. They proceeded to play together while (presumably) the mother and other female relatives looked on.
I’ve also engaged in face-making with small babies, and not been glared at.
So I dunno, get lives; maybe my friend and I are both charming as fuck, maybe you should stop wearing your “I eat babies” t-shirt, or maybe there are other factors at play.
Nah, generally there are posted rules about what ages you can take your opposite-sex kids into gender-specific changing rooms. Usually in the UK it’s up to the age of 7 with a caveat that after that it’s up to management, ie if you, a woman, have a twelve year old autistic son you might be better off going into a stall in the men’s changing rooms, possibly even asking politely to jump the queue for a stall. Or if you have two kids of slightly different ages… basically there’s room for manouever but a woman taking one three-year-old boy into the men’s changing room is not within that.
I took my daughter’s best male friend (who has turned out really well, but had problems as a child) into female changing rooms when he was under seven, but looked way over it (he started puberty at three and looked way, way, way older than his age - and acted younger), and either loudly said something that stated his age but was part of conversation or just explained to anyone who looked at us oddly. And lots did because he looked so grown up. It was hard work but he was very young and needed help, and still I could understand the consternation of the people around us because looking at him you’d have said eleven, not five.
Then I had to go into the men’s changing rooms a few times when he was over 7 because he wasn’t managing on his own and someone had called me to help. Then, whether I had a member of staff with me or not, I apologised to the men there and averted my eyes, and made sure we went into a cubicle. The men there were very reasonable about it.
Family changing rooms are a fucking Godsend but even they don’t usually apply after after the age of seven. I’m glad our area now has mostly communal rooms with tons of cubes.
So, basically, no, the woman, with a three-year-old, had other options than just treating this territory like it was hers when it was clearly marked as not hers. There will almost definitely have been written, signposted rules and if there weren’t then that’s something to take up with centre management.
I actually know people who own t-shirts with “baby-eating anarchist” on them and I’ve seen at least one of them wear it out in public.
SlackerInc, you need to work on your gender recognition. That was not the kid’s mother. That was the kid’s father. It’s amazing what a bit of make-up can do to make a fella look nice.
The mom was wrong. The lifeguard was wrong for not telling her to leave the men’s locker room.
As To The Ongoing Debate
I smile at, make funny faces at, chat with and so on kids all the time. OTTOMH I can count on one hand the number of negative experiences I’ve had- and one of those was just because the mother was an asshole*. More often, I find that smiling at kids and such improves everybody’s bus ride. I’ll never forget the time the boy I had been making faces at pointed at me as he was exiting “Did you see that man, mommy? He’s silly!” High praise in my book.
At an outdoor antique market, I was next to a boy who was handling one of the antiques. Thinking that I would be far kinder than the stall owner (IME they often react harshly to kids touching the wares), I said in a gentle voice “Look with your eyes not with your hands.” The boy withdrew his hand. Mom turned around and said angrily “He wasn’t going to touch it!” Before I could say anything a third party defended me “He was touching it!” This devolved into the mother arguing that it was her child and she and only she could correct him. Others insisted that she hadn’t been watching her son. She eventually said some angry things and stormed off.
Seriously? I’m sure someone will dig up a cite, but it seems extremely obvious and intuitive that serious physical child abuse is way more prevalent than stranger murder.
Interesting, I’m surprised. (Of course, this still doesn’t have much relevance to a parent like me who has never even spanked any of my kids.)
But so wait: now using an actuarial approach to danger is something you endorse? You seemed to be against it when it was suggested it might have a racial element.
I would ask the lady to leave the men’s locker room, and if she did not then possibly turn on my video recorder, ask her again while also mentioning this wasn’t my first request, and if she still stayed then proceed to change while keeping the camera running and pointed at her.
I don’t think men who act this way have to fear her claiming rape or exposure or some such - if she did, I’d hope I wouldn’t end up arrested, or worse.
