The bookstore chain Barnes and Noble issued a rather belated apology to Dr. Omar Amin, 73, of Scottsdale, after he was thrown out of a children’s book section in Arizona. He was told that men are not allowed to be in the children’s section unless they are accompanied by a minor. That’s right. He was told that as a man he was viewed as a danger if reading alone in the section.
Amin was shopping for books for his grandchildren at his neighborhood bookstore when a female customer complained that a man was seen reading alone in the section. Barnes & Noble employee Todd Voris reported explained that men are viewed as potential child abusers if they are alone in the section.
What is fascinating is that the company responded to the incident by publicly supporting the decision to throw Amin out — insisting that Voris “acted appropriately.” What followed was days of criticism of the company.
Finally, yesterday the company did a complete 180 turn and denounced the decision as wrong and unacceptable. Now, Barnes & Noble vice president Mark Bottini maintains that “[i]t is not our policy to ask customers to leave any section of our stores without justification. We value Dr. Amin as a customer and look forward to welcoming him in any of our stores.”
Once again, I am amazed by the ineptitude of major corporations in such controversies. The company had to have deliberated on the first response and decision to embrace the policy. Then it abandoned that position and denounced the very act that it previously called appropriate.
There is something perverse in our society that the image of an elderly man reading in a children’s section is enough to send a woman to the front desk to report a suspected child molester.
Source: Daily Mail
I like chardonnay. With chicken breasts. Steamed rice as a side dish, please. Add some peas and carrots.
I serve white wine with Twinkies and red wine with Swiss Cake Rolls.
Hey Malisha,
Do you like Twinkies? How about snow cones, with all the coconut stuff on top. Marshmallows too. Do you have a problem with that?
Malisha 1, June 7, 2012 at 12:45 am
Anon, I don’t assume you are “unaware of [your] pathology” because you’re a man. I don’t even assume you HAVE your pathology because you’re a man. I just put two and two together (your frequent forays into graphic misogyny, your protesting way too much, your touchiness and bitterness, your rants against feminists, your lack of humor, etc.)
===================================================
What makes you Anon’s a man? Maybe he’s more like you than you realize.
That’s some law that law of public cliquishness.
Sjöberg’s Law of Public Cliquishness:
“Any unmoderated public discussion space, no matter what the ostensible subject, will eventually attract a clique of contributors who will use the space primarily to discuss their personal lives and trade in-jokes. In addition, it will attract at least one regular contributor who will make it his or her goal to harass and harangue the other regulars.”
Hey Malisha,
Um, I cannot respond to you anymore.
I like seeing you around, you’ve made some interesting comments on various threads, and about your personal life, and I kind of wish I knew you in person, as you have an interesting background, but your post above indicates something that I don’t want to be a part of anymore.
Sincerely, I wish you the best.
Anon
NOTICE: I just did this because I wanted to; nobody need read unless you enjoy this kinda stuff. (Which is, of course, always true for all of us.)
Anon, I got interested in your outrage for a while today, trying to distract myself from a chore that I felt like avoiding, and I note with some interest the following:
1. Your initial entry to criticize my (not BN’s) conduct (on June 6, at 2:24 pm) actually presented the idea that MY “incorrect…post” contributed to the “stranger danger that afflicts society and oppresses men.” Whereas you also claimed that I was trying to justify “stranger danger by falsely claiming it [was] justified by mothers trying to protect their kids,” I will deal with that gross misreading and misunderstanding in point 2, below.
My point in the comment I posted was, and clearly said it was, to point out that “stranger danger” was a very small matter, blown out of proportion by our society, to no good end and for no good reason. I believe that “stranger danger” is in fact being emphasized to distract people from the REAL danger posed to children in our society: NOT FROM STRANGERS but from people in their own families. The most common child sexual abuse situation that is real, NOT FALSE, is incest, and it takes place within the family, and in most cases, the child’s own biological mother is NOT the molester. This is simply a statistical fact. Thus, in most cases where there IS incest, the mother, NOT being the molester herself, is in the position of a legally responsible caretaker and it is ON HER to protect her child from the incest, and if she does know about it or even suspect it for good reason, it is her legal obligation to report it. Unfortunately, there are cases where a mother performing her legal obligation to report such suspicions of abuse is then punished for having done so. THAT has nothing to do with a paranoid or otherwise impaired woman in a book store carrying on because a man is reading children’s books. The “stranger danger” was not even present in BN; I did not contribute to it by observing that.
2. Next, you claimed that I tried to justify “stranger danger” by falsely claiming that it (and here, “it” must be understood to refer to “stranger danger” was justified by mothers trying to protect their kids.
No I didn’t. In fact, much later in the thread, MommaBear did that in a way, but I didn’t, and in fact, I don’t believe “stranger danger” has anything to DO with mothers trying to protect their kids. Interestingly, only “stranger danger” is ever dealt with in our schools and churches and so forth. It is a very minor issue in our society. It is blown up all out of proportion by people who are NOT paying attention and spending public money on the REAL problem of “person-we-all-know-and-love-danger.” In fact, the real risk of PHYSICAL DANGER from strangers is much less than the real risk of physical danger from people we all know and love – that is the big story behind the domestic violence movement. But your assumption that I was justifying anything by referring to “mothers trying to protect their kids” was simple and probably deliberate nonsequitur. I was not justifying; I was complaining. I was saying, in effect, “Look how stupid this is, that a wacko complains about a guy doing no harm, and she gets this big-bang response, when a mother honestly trying to protect her own child from a real danger will likely be ignored or even punished for trying.” I stand by that 100%.
3. The beginning of your misattributing to me various kinds of behavior you dislike as proof that I (and then the feminists and then whatever) am wronging you. You’re explaining that certain kinds of behavior mischaracterized as “suspicious” is not really suspicious. You say, and I quote, with real quotation marks: “Just because Malisha reports a father alone with a child is no reason for BN or the Po po to kick him out, arrest him, taze him, or gun him down, regardless of what some idiot man hater would have you believe.”
You’re off the deep end, Anon. And this comment was made on June 6, at 3:35 pm, only an hour and 11 minutes after you commented that I was both causing and justifying “stranger danger” and its concomitant oppression of men.
4. When Oro Lee discusses with you the possibility that a person’s fear might actually motivate a polite inquiry, you conclude, “Sure, sounds like profiling to me. All men should understand how sociopathic lawyers promote profiling (and other evil practices) but believe they are clever enough to make it invisible, and hence, ‘okay’.”
Now, I did not actually agree with Oro Lee’s point, and I also did not get motivated to respond to it, but I can tell you absolutely that it would not (right or wrong or in between) lead me or any rational person to conclude that all men needed to understand this sociopathic evil invisible profiling behavior on the part of lawyers – and may I ask, if “all men” needed to understand that, why not “a few non-feminist women” as well? I mean, wouldn’t it be evil and sociopathic to start profiling women as evil strident panty-waving bitches simply because lawyers want to hide their…sorry, Anon, I can’t even find the points to graph this clearly enough to find its analogy.
5. Here’s a screamer: You said, “I believe BN had a duty to the man to inform him that some crazy bitch was going around making dangerous and ignorant allegations against him. And I believe BN had a duty to watch that bitch and make sure she didn’t approach or endanger any of their other customers.”
I’m wondering how you would get that into the employee training manual. Perhaps thus: All employees have a duty to decrease the already egregious problem of the oppression of men within book stores. For instance, if some crazy bitch attempts to enlist the assistance of employees to oppress a man, the employees shall immediately inform the man that the crazy bitch is going around making dangerous and ignorant allegations against him. Also watch that crazy bitch to make sure she doesn’t approach or endanger any other customers. Should there be several such crazy bitches in the store at any one time, employees are asked to call for reinforcements.
6. Shortly thereafter, when I said I wasn’t aware of the gender of the wacko who reported Omar Amin for suspected pedophilia, you admonished me that “anyone with 2 brain cells to scrape together knows it was a woman that complained about an old guy on the floor making a phone call was a child molester.
Hmmm. Sounds a bit like profiling to me.
7. You added: No one is arguing all women are bad. However, women like you do argue that all men are bad just as you’ve done here repeatedly to justify this anti-male behavior.
Well that’s just nuts, Anon. You can’t find anywhere on any thread on any blog or anywhere else in the universe where I have argued that all men are bad. Woosty pointed out that YOU ARE BAD.
Based on your comments on another thread, where you wrote: “we bend over backwards to allow mothers to steal children from fathers, (we call that “tender years” doctrine”) and to allow women to kill their children, cut off their partner’s genitals,and kill their husbands (we say to these things “you go girl” and call it “battered wife syndrome”). * * * If you have or had any role in this you’re damn right you should apologize and be ashamed of your actions. * * * Especially if you otherwise claim to believe in equality and not believe in violence.”
You are saying, in that quote, that the defense of “battered wife syndrome” is not really a defense of any woman who suffered an inability to engage in self-defense because of her conditioning (as I would have described it) but, instead, is what we call the following conduct: “women kill[ing] their children, cut[ting] off their partner’s genitals, and kill[ing] their husbands…”
And from there you graduate to: “If you have or had any role in this [this being battered wife syndrome?] you’re damn right you should apologize and be ashamed of your actions.”
So first, you define “battered wife syndrome” as acts of murder and mayhem, and then you announce that I should be ashamed of having had “any role” in “this.”
It’s easy, Anon. Let me define what happened in the Warsaw Ghetto uprising for you, by your token:
“A bunch of residents committed economic crimes to purchase illegal weapons and then violated all the laws in place in their neighborhood and even destroyed the infrastructure of the sanitation system to murder, burn and maim government employees doing their job. If you had any part in this you should be ashamed.”
See? It’s easy. Take an action and define it in your own terms, then anyone who took part or “played a role” in it should be ashamed.
And YOU do this all the time, Anon, and when I (or anyone else) try to return you to the actual events that underlay your blaming and name-calling tantrum, you become even more inflamed.
Without noticing that I condemned the woman who made the “scary pedophile” complaint against Omar Amin as a wacko, without noticing that I was offended that B&N listened to her when she had no right to carry on, and misinterpreting the fact that I contrasted this idiotic and offensive behavior with the common negligent or even punitive responses normal mothers get when they are validly helping their children speak out against sexual abuse within the family (where most of it occurs), you go off that I am causing oppression of men and etc. etc. etc. and pay undue and irrational attention to my underwear.
8. QUOTE: Your bullshit that men are by default to be considered evil and women by default are to be considered pure is bullshit. * * * That that bullshit is carried throughout society and into and through our courts is a crime against all of humanity.
Anon, it is not happening. You were not considered evil by default. Perhaps you were considered evil; I don’t know. But you were not considered evil by default. I think Trayvon Martin was. Two or three assholes considered Omar Amin POSSIBLY evil by “profiling” although not by “default.” I don’t agree that you were either profiled or considered evil by default.
9. And then there is the question of who “started” the panti-ranting and the name-calling.
On June 6 – ANON: Hey, you brought up Richard Gardner (again), so uh, you started it babe.
On June 7 – MALISHA: So maybe you started it after all, Hunk.
On June 7, at 3:09 a.m., you say:
Sheesh Malisha, get a grip, get some self-awareness, get some dignity, get some intellectual honesty, honey, baby, really.
On June 6 at 7:40 p.m. you said: “Malisha you expressly compared this thread (and past threads) to when you talk to holocaust deniers. You’ve done it before. You will do it again. All while waving your panties around and screaming that’s not what you are doing.”
Anon, I won’t even comment on that one. You have not commented on what, if anything, I was doing with my bra when I was “screaming.”
On June 7 – Malisha, What you should find hilarious is how you compare this thread to holocaust denial and then deny doing so. And yes, you are right, you are justified to snidely call me hunk, but it is misogyny to refer to you as a panty waving honey, babe.
Later on June 7 — Well I am glad your tl;dr panty waving rant about the evils of menz and courtz has made you feel better. Maybe we can both agree that most of this harm comes from stupid lawyers, jackass judges, and idiot politicians that listen to feminists.
So, your pantie-references: June 6, June 7, again June 7, June 8.
So, the panties pre-dated, survived and reappeared after the “Hunk.” In terms of the oppression factor from my having spoken down to you that way, all I can say is: Oh, sorry.
10. Now on to how you take offense and what it means in terms of the validity of your position in the debate on who and how is oppressing men. In response to Lottakatz pointing out that men commit most child sexual abuse, you respond that the studies DO IN FACT SHOW that most child sexual abuse is committed by men, by attributing SOME child sexual abuse by men to the WOMEN you consider responsible for allowing those men to COMMIT IT. LOOK:
“Most child sexual abuse is committed by men; studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys and 6% of offenses reported against girls”
The problem is a lot of child abuse is committed by mother’s new boyfriends or mother’s new husband.
That gets listed as male abuser which then gets conflated as father, but in reality it’s the mother that has let the abuse occur, and it’s not by a family member except for mommy dearest.”
WOW, Anon, see what happened here? MALE child sexual abuse was categorized in your mind as attributable to “MOMMY DEAREST” because although it was committed by a MALE, that MALE was someone that the MOMMY “let” abuse her children. So although the abuser was MALE even in your interpretation, because he was not the child’s biological father, you consider him not to be a “family member” and even take the liberty of sliding the abuse statistic over to the “family member” who let it happen – MOM – so you have conveniently re-attributed this sexual abuse of a child, noted in the statistics, from a MALE to a FEMALE. Yes, maybe “BAD MALE” did it but “BAD FEMALE” let it be done. Therefore we subtract “one” from the “GOOD MALE” list and add it onto the mounting numbers of “BAD FEMALE.” Now, let me point out that I previously had that “BAD FEMALE” you call “MOMMY DEAREST” in the column of “GOOD FEMALE.” Why did I have her there?
The case is Hanke versus Hanke in Maryland. Mary [Maiden Name Forgotten] married Dan Hanke when she already had a daughter, and then Dan and Mary had a second daughter. There was a 7-year age difference between the two girls. One day Dan Hanke took the 11-year-old daughter out to the garage and molested her and apparently threatened her with punishment if she told. She did, however, tell. Dan Hanke was her step-father, but her sister’s biological father. A police officer believed the child about the incident and charged Dan Hanke, who was convicted. He elocuted. He said he had stripped the child, basically molested her, including oral penetration, and various other very clear sexual acts, no intercourse and no ejaculation. He was convicted and sentenced; he did not appeal. Then there was a divorce proceeding in which he sued for custody of his younger daughter. The judge denied the mother’s motion to only allow supervised visitation of the then four-year-old child. She sent her daughter on two or three visits but after one or more visits at which the child showed signs of having also been molested, she made an emergency motion to suspend visitation, which was summarily denied, and then she left her older daughter in the care of a relative and went into hiding. The Commonwealth of Kentucky actually took emergency jurisdiction, placed the young child in state custody, returned physical custody to the mother, and refused to allow the Maryland court to force the child to return to her father in Maryland. The older daughter later sued Dan Hanke for abuse and won.
Mary Hanke LET Dan Hanke molest her older daughter. She did NOT let him molest her younger daughter. The reason she LET him molest her older daughter was that she did not know he was doing it until the police intervened. When she went to court to try to NOT LET him do it to her younger daughter, she was not believed, not supported, and her daughter was not protected. It took extraordinary actions on the part of a lot of people (MEN AND WOMEN) to protect that child. I named names in this description because these are public cases: criminal case in the criminal court and civil case in the civil court. The custody case was even open; members of the public filled the courtroom as an amicus application was presented to ask the judge to allow an evaluation by Johns Hopkins, but the judge refused. Mr. Masten Childers, then the Commissioner of Health and Human Services for Kentucky (and later I believe Attorney General) argued to the Court on behalf of the child.
He’s a MAN and a very good one.
So I would have had the chart look like this, for good-man and bad-man and good-woman and bad-woman:
Mary Hanke had 2 daughters – no points
Dan Hanke molested older daughter – 1 in “BAD MAN” column
Mary Hanke “LET” Dan Hanke molest older daughter – arguendo, 1 in “BAD WOMAN” column
Dan Hanke wanted to molest younger daughter – no points
Mary Hanke wanted to protect younger daughter and made allegation – 1 in “GOOD WOMAN”
Judge refused to allow Mary Hanke to protect daughter – 1 in “BAD MAN” column
Mary Hanke tried harder, and lost – no points
Older relative took older daughter so Mary could escape with younger – 1 in “GOOD WOMAN”
Mary ran away with younger daughter – 1 in “GOOD WOMAN”
Dan went to court to get court order forcing Mary to return and turn over child – 1 in “BAD MAN”
Child psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins gave amicus curiae application to court – 1 in “GOOD MAN”
Judge ordered Mary to turn over younger child or be jailed – 1 in “BAD MAN” [Note: had the judge been a woman the point would go in “bad woman” but that was a male judge that time]
Masten Childers saved the day – 1 in “GOOD MAN”
Lawyer helped older daughter sue for damages – 1 in “GOOD WOMAN” [Note: had this lawyer been a man, the point would go in “good man” but that was a female lawyer that time]
So the tally, by my accounting is:
Four (4) in the BAD MAN column;
one (1) in the BAD WOMAN column;
Four (4) in the GOOD WOMAN column; and
two (2) in the “GOOD MAN” column.
That’s just the breakdown for this particular case and I do not think it illuminates us on whether men are good or bad or whether women are bad or good. By the way, the cop who believed the child was a woman and I left her out because I thought it would look like I was loading the case against men; she could just as easily have been a male cop who responded that day.
11. You say: “[t]ell all of us that you’ve never heard, they’ve never heard a real case where one parent poisoned the kids against the other parent.
Oh I have indeed. I think the real case of Amy Neustein’s daughter in Rockland County, New York, is a perfect example. Her daughter was taken from her and placed in foster care with a very corrupt New York social service agency called “OHEL” [Hebrew for “The Hill”] and Brooklyn DA Hynes refused to draw criminal charges for either child sexual abuse OR medical neglect when the child was actually near death from dehydration and starvation. She was turned so effectively against her mother that she reportedly threatened suicide if her mother attended her wedding. The young woman is filled with what she describes as “not hate” but she periodically goes on line to slander her mother, who is a highly respected and prestigious professional and who was responsible for saving her daughter’s life. It can be done.
I am not even suggesting that it has not been done by some mothers, as well as some fathers. Long before there were custody battles, when the law simply said that fathers had custody unless they chose not to keep the children, there were still instances of poisoning of a child’s mind against a parent, whether it was done by the other parent or not. Some children’s minds have been poisoned against parents by churches; some children’s minds have been poisoned against parents by spouses or friends or relatives or other influential people such as cult programmers or deprogrammers. It is not impossible. And that doesn’t prove a thing.
An adult’s mind can also be poisoned. The most common combination of these things is, of course, when an adult’s mind has been poisoned SINCE EARLIEST CHILDHOOD, not necessarily against a parent, but against someone else. He may learn, for instance, to suspect, profile and have poisonous feelings toward a certain race or ethnicity, toward a religion or culture, toward a sexual preference or a sexual identity, toward a nationality or background, or even toward one or the other gender. It is, of course, a daily occurrence.
12. In response to Bron saying dads should stay and raise their kids, you, Anon, give us your take on the social problem:
“But there are many reasons fathers don’t stick around to raise their children.
“…Welfare economics that give incentives to birth mothers to raise kids on their own
“…The abuse of fathers in family court. I stuck around and tried to be a good father even though the mother has made it impossible and alienated the kids and it has killed my career and killed much of my life. Friends of mine that did leave, just got out, regardless of how much they wanted to be part of their kids’ lives? I think now in hindsight they made a better choice for themselves.
“…Abuse from the mother in terms of parental alienation and interference with visitation. Only a few states will do anything at all to enforce visitation. And by the time it gets to court months later (10 months in my current case), it has cost thousands of dollars and the kids are very alienated.”
So now, in the category of whose fault it is that dads don’t “stay and raise their kids,” you have the blame assigned three ways: (a) Welfare is the greedy women who want welfare and the mistaken society that gives this “incentive” to them; (b) courts are the abusive agencies that cause fathers to leave their families; and (c) surprise, surprise, abusive mothers who alienate their kids. There is no fourth category of men who are perhaps selfish, greedy, abusive or neglectful. Everything is the fault of bad women and a messed up society with corrupt courts. No wonder you hate feminists! They are ultimately responsible for ALL THE EVIL IN THE WORLD IN WHICH YOU LIVE!
13. One of your latest quotes, Anon, was the ever so quotable: “This thread needs more panties, your feminist granny panties are overwhelming this thread.”
Well, well, what does this thread need?
Remember, Anon, you’re the one who said, on the Zimmerman thread (where you referred to other commentators as “idiots” repeatedly):
“It’s like you’re arguing about a crime you saw committed in your head where you are certain of all of the facts and woe to anyone that has any other interpretation.”
The event YOU saw committed in YOUR HEAD, Anon, was a woman reporting an innocent man for a crime that had never been committed.
In your head, you saw this woman getting authorities to assist her in excluding the man from a place he had every right to be, for no reason at all or for her own ridiculous reasons.
So far, so good, because these two things happened.
But then, YOU saw that feminists, screaming and waving their (or others’ – how do you know?) panties, treated ALL MEN shabbily just as Dr. Amin had been treated shabbily, and you saw that this was the result of women like Malisha, AND MALISHA, being horrible to you and other oppressed men, being mean and lying about you, alienating children – including your OWN children – against you, and generally being BAD WOMEN.
You’re not coming back from the place you have sent yourself because of your distorted views of the world, Anon. And fewer and fewer men are meeting you out there, thank God for small favors.
Anon: “panties”
This thread needs more panties, your feminist granny panties are overwhelming this thread.
Fortunately, Anon, your assumptions about my — or anyone else’s — purported panties — do not overwhelm this thread or anyone anywhere except you, in your overactive and fevered imagination.
About you being misquoted, well, when someone gets to be a public figure as you have, Anon, that’s just one of the risks that goes with the glory.
“yelling at me when we all know that mothers are abusers”
I never said that, nor do I believe that, nor would a high school student reading this thread believe that.
“Malisha REPORTS FATHERS FOR BEING ALONE WITH CHILDREN.”
I never said that, nor do I believe that, nor would a high school student reading this thread believe that.
“If women don’t value you highly enough it’s because the feminist bitches are liars and something about their panties.”
I have never said this, nor do I believe this, nor would a high school student reading this thread believe this.
“And if they appear to nail you for any of that, they have misquoted, misinterpreted, lied, made false allegations, been strident, or — I don’t know, something else about their panties.”
I have never said this, nor do I believe this, nor would a high school student reading this thread believe this.
“panties”
This thread needs more panties, your feminist granny panties are overwhelming this thread.