Here is the point though, unless the OP was at one of those super luxuary Cinemas, the chances of him ending up touching the lady in question and her touching him were pretty high. In a crowded theatre and especially a dark one, you can easily end up physically interacting with your neighbours. Be it stepping on their toes as you go through, to hitting their knees doing the same, ti dropping things or having things dropped on them if not careful. When I move in such a cinema, I will typically mutter "sorry, excuse me"on a loop.
Presumably its not Dad’s first time in a theatre; he would know that most touching there is accidental. Hell, he might even miss actual inappropriate touching thinking that it was an accident/kid misunderstood. And if he complained, people would be more ready to believe that it was an accident whih was misinterpreted.
I mostly agree with this. The only problem is that, as I said earlier, it’s a bit like vaccination suddenly becoming a hot-button issue, and my response being to start threads about crazy scenarios where getting a vaccination was the real problem, instead of getting a disease being the real problem. Yes, the fear is real, but the way it’s raised here, and especially the way some folks have piggybacked on it, can undermine another conversation.
And consider the serious public policy implications of fears like MMM’s: some dudes might not enjoy movies as much as they otherwise would. That’s the danger of letting the fear go unaddressed!
Other folks, with more serious issues, might not get to pee at a urinal.
The result of widely shared fears, if such actually exist, could be impact on support for items that meaningfully impact sexual harassment and assault, indeed undermining whatever it is that actually needs to be done (which is beyond the scope of this thread). The impact of a widely shared irrational fear could also be as lilihob imagines - a chilling effect on adults (males in particular but not necessarily exclusively) being willing to interact with kids unless there are multiple adult witnesses present. We live in world in which there are already many families with few adult male role models involved in kids’ lives; would it be a good thing that those who are willing to be involved now refused out of irrational fear? Imagine, as one small example, if this irrational fear was widely spread among teachers and as a result teachers were afraid to meet with kids privately to review material?
The impact I am thinking about is not being uncomfortable in a theater or having to pee in a stall.
Vaccination hysteria is a fine example and one I deal with probably more than anyone else here. Mocking those afraid of immunizations has no positive impact on changing behaviors. Presenting the facts? Minimal impact as the fear is not rational in its origins. In fact very often those two immediate responses are counterproductive if anything. Changing the behavior, and I do succeed in doing that a fair fraction of the time, requires first listening to those who are afraid with full attention and having the parents feel that they have been heard and respected, not dismissed. It requires a conversation, not a lecture, and sometimes more than one. It requires understanding where the fear actually comes from.
Wait…you were afraid that something life-changingly bad could happen to you, because of a potential interaction with someone of the opposite sex?
Imagine that fear, except that instead of one child one time, it was nearly every woman, always? In other words…
WELCOME TO OUR WORLD.
This is what every woman deals with in nearly every interaction with men every day. Except that instead of potential damage to our reputation, it’s potential violation of our bodies and souls.
Which is why we have threads like “Do you see every man as a potential rapist?” Well, do you see every child or woman as a possible accuser? Most of them aren’t, you know. But it is a potential problem, and you may find yourself having to dedicate some small percentage of your thoughts to making sure that doesn’t happen. That’s what we have to do.
Do you see what I mean?
I don’t think it’s such a great example. It’s the kind of ‘example’ where the example giver tries to establish a point in question by analogizing to a case where it’s not in question. There’s no question that anti-vaxxers are wrong (overwhelmingly, if not literally 100% of all such expressions).
IMO it hasn’t really been established except by continual assertion, and comparison to irrelevant statistics*, that there isn’t as much irrationality on the parent side now about sexual abuse of children as there is among men who fear being falsely accused.
Although with that clarification (that it is not strictly a rational societal trend v men with irrational fears of it, but rather there’s at least some irrationality on the ‘protect the children’ side now) I agree it can result in men pulling back from children in a society with already too many children without positive male role models in their lives.
Also I don’t think it’s helpful to throw together sexual harassment/assault accusations by adult women and child sexual abuse. Those don’t have the same social dynamics and deserve separate treatment. That’s besides the lamentable posts by women pretty much crowing ‘now you know we feel’. That’s entirely counterproductive IMO.
*nobody doubts most victims of child sex abuse don’t report it. That doesn’t mean society can’t go overboard looking for and suspecting child sexual abuse.
A more serious way of addressing the question of the OP, is what protocols should you follow in public spaces, and specifically in this instance, a crowded theater.?
When I go to the theatre, it’s almost always matinee, so there are less than a dozen other people there. Sitting near any of them would be a bit weird, no matter the age/gender combinations. The only time I go during busier hours is with a group of friends, where I don’t know that I’ve really noticed the environment all that much. I would assume that if anything did come up in that situation, I at least have a bunch of friends with me that would back me up, that know that I wouldn’t do something like I have been accused, so this is not a fear that I have ever really concerned myself with.
But, thinking a bit on it. If I was sitting in a crowded theater, and a small girl sat next to me, I don’t think I would be too concerned. I would be more concerned, actually, about her spilling her snacks or drink on me than her accusing me of molesting her. But, for either reason, were I to be the one choosing a seat, I would not choose the seat next to a little girl, as that could send some wrong signals to her parents. If I were to enter a theater, and see that the only free seats were next to little girls, well, first, I would check to see what movie I am watching that attracts that much of a demographic, but there is a good chance that I would forgo the showing, rather than take the potentially interpretable as malicious action of sitting down next to one.
It’s not necessarily a rational fear, but not all fears are. Someone upthread was talking about it being more likely that they are attacked by an alligator. Well, sure, alligator attacks are rare, but even still, and even if you were at the safety of a Disney resort, would you not feel a bit nervous seeing your toddler get a bit too close to the lagoon? Similar idea, while overall statistically, it’s rare, there are certain situations that may seem to have a higher probability of that negative outcome occurring, and so either avoiding the situation, or maintaining a heightened sense of awareness of potential dangers is not entirely irrational.
I mean, if nothing else, you would not treat a neighboring seat with a small child the same way you would treat it if it were empty. One of the reasons I go to the theatre when it is slow is because I like to have both armrests to myself. If I were insisting on keeping my arm on the rest with a girl next to me, that could be seen as invading her space, if not anything more malicious.
I think about it but not too much. I have two daughters and the youngest is a competitive gymnast so I am constantly surrounded by young girls. I decided a long time ago not to let fear of false accusations influence my behavior that much. I have my own daughters alone a few times a week and sometimes they have their friends over. Anyone that thinks anything of it can go straight to hell but nobody has ever mentioned it.
The only problem I ever had was with a psychologist oddly enough. My daughter was having emotional problems and the psychologist asked her “Has your father ever touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable?” My daughter said “Yes” so she reported it to CPS. What she didn’t ask the then 6 year old was what she meant by that. What she meant was that I patted her on the back once when she had a sunburn. I have to give credit to my ex-wife. She defended me and opened up her full Italian temper on the psychologist.
I feel the same way about the fathers of their friends. It is perfectly fine for them to be alone with them because I know them and vice versa. My daughter has a male gymnastics coach that she really likes and has private lessons sometimes. There is nothing wrong with that as long as I know them well.
I don’t like this new regressivism especially when it is focused on sex segregation. It is going in the wrong direction.
OK, then is some understanding too much to ask?
Must interactions on this subject be utterly dismissive?
It seems to me that the irrational fear that some girl may accuse you of touching her in a theater is being compared to actual real fears that women have had for ages.
Perhaps that is why the subject is being dismissed?
That would imply that the complainers are generally okay with that state of affairs. I suspect reality is rather the opposite. It’s sort of, but not exactly, like being falsely accused of a murder and held in jail for a year and then told that that’s not worthy of sympathy because, after all, you weren’t the one who was murdered. Both things can be wrong even if they are not alike in severity.
…the OP has expressed no empathy for anyone with a different perspective at all. The OP has been dismissive of anyone who disagrees with him. People aren’t being dismissive of “the subject.” They are being dismissive of the tone-deaf and insulting opening post. When Mean Mr. Mustard starts to show that he understands where people like Broomstick and Maggie and jsgoddess are coming from then maybe people will stop being so “dismissive.” But the OP set the tone.
I’m aware of being near any child. I try not to sit next to them. On a crowded NYC subway I have no choice sometimes, and certainly I wind up sitting next to women decades younger than me.
I cross my arms. Always. Unless they are visibly holding a book, my arms are always folded before me.
I’ve also stopped speaking to people on the subway as well as making any eye contact.
It is utterly UN-human to behave this way in a city this crowded, interesting and engaging. It is also the only way to proceed. Zero contact. Zero words. Zero looking or reacting.
I think the zero interaction is a big part of the problem. We need to be able to show kids that some strangers are good people. We can’t accomplish that with zero interaction. As a teacher, I am fully aware that my words and actions speak volumes, and I always try to make sure students are comfortable in my classes. Male and female, and anyone else.
Couldn’t support this approach more. As a former E.M.T., I was always incredibly aware of placing my hands onto another person- a stranger. Even as a ‘civillian’ now, I would have liked to believe that the right thing to do in an emergency is call 911 and then intervene to the extent of my training. ( NYS Good Samaritan Laws cover me, since it’s been years since my EMT certification was valid ).
Now? I would have to think very long and hard before stepping forward to offer assistance. That just kills me. But I have to consider a life-changing accusation.
A slight reframe of the conversation would be more effective and reasonable, IMO. Something like this:
Well said.
Votes LHoD for Board President
Focusing on the “unreasonable” part is a bit much, but you did do something which the more dismissive in this thread failed to do, which was acknowledge the existence of male assault victims.
…what the frack?
I’ve been dismissive in this thread. I also acknowledge the existence of male assault victims and I apologise for not bringing it up in this particular thread (which has fuck-all-to-do with male victims of assault). I also acknowledge that climate change is real, that smoking is bad for you and that Thor Ragnarok is an awesome movie, and I apologize for not acknowledging any of that as well.
Is there anything else, as a “dismissive person”, that you want me to acknowledge while I’m at it?
Wait. What?
There is nothing about this that is about comparing the irrationality of parents to “stranger danger” (quite irrational as most child sexual abuse is NOT by a stranger, but by a known individual, most commonly a family member, and usually in the home) to the extreme irrationality of being afraid of being falsely accused by a random child sitting in a movie theater or in a public bathroom. There is no question that there is functionally no risk that a random child in a movie theatre with a parent is, out of the blue, going to falsely accuse an unknown man sitting next to them of diddling with her during the show. If you think there is then please provide some evidence of any accusations of such, or even anything comparable, occurring.