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
Lottakatz, it is not just a dangerous case of profiling, in my opinion, but the profile is WRONG too. I don’t think pedophiles troll in book stores and I don’t think children’s book purchasers are generally pedophiles, either. The idea is idiotic both ways.
Anon, if you think I have compared the male-in-family incest deniers to the holocaust deniers, you’re only part right. I did not do that but I think there is one similarity: the propensity for using specious arguments and for becoming unglued when people who can think straight find your arguments beneath contempt.
As far as there being a lot of brilliant wonderful people at the PAS conferences, that doesn’t impress me at all. I have a friend who has a 26 page resume and 99% of it is fantastic stuff. I saw that he was on the board of the PAS organization and asked him how much he knew about their work. He didn’t know much; they had written to him giving him a sales pitch and he went for it and let them include him. I showed him a few cases and even some of the testimony involved. He was embarrassed and took that off his resume forthwith. I also asked him to opine on the autopsy report and guess what — he thinks it’s pretty weird.
My own theory is a sort of “Murder on the Orient express” kinda thing…but there was reason for the coroner to want this to NOT turn into a murder investigation. Of course, who would want to murder this guy?
By the way, PAS is not just junk science, it’s misogynist crap recycled as junk science. If you think about it, it would provide an automatic situation in which any parent who objected to any other parent abusing the child would be seen as “alienating” the child, under this theory. How could you ever tell if there ever was abuse? If it’s only by bruises and physical injuries, then plenty of sex acts with ilttle kids would not even quality as abuse. The whole thing is made of nonsense for the specific purpose of making it impossible for children to access help when and if they really are abused. And there can be just as many prestigious (and/or Jewish) abusers as any other kind.
Malisha, you’re not incorrect, child sexual abuse is still the providence of males, family members and friends of the family primarily:
“The global prevalence of child sexual abuse has been estimated at 19.7% for females and 7.9% for males, according to a 2009 study published in Clinical Psychology Review that examined 65 studies from 22 countries. Using the available data, the highest prevalence rate of child sexual abuse geographically was found in Africa (34.4%), primarily because of high rates in South Africa; Europe showed the lowest prevalence rate (9.2%); America and Asia had prevalence rates between 10.1% and 23.9%.[11] In the past, other research has concluded similarly that in North America, for example, approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[12][13][14] Most sexual abuse offenders are acquainted with their victims; approximately 30% are relatives of the child, most often brothers, fathers, uncles or cousins; around 60% are other acquaintances such as ‘friends’ of the family, babysitters, or neighbors; strangers are the offenders in approximately 10% of child sexual abuse cases.[12] 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.[12][13][15] Most offenders who sexually abuse prepubescent children are pedophiles,[16][17] although some offenders do not meet the clinical diagnosis standards for pedophilia.[18][19]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse
_____
That being said, I’m one of those folks that bought children’s books (old and new) for the illustrations. The new ones got too expensive but a nice book at a garage sale is still a Lottakatz magnet.
The old guy should have been left alone, it’s a dangerous form of profiling.
Malisha,
You should attend some conferences for Parental Alienation Syndrome.
I’ve found they are either majority female or an even mix of women to men. The women there (like the men) are often doctors, nurses, and lawyers.
I honestly don’t know why you keep bringing up Gardner, and now his death, or what your point is, but all of know that Parental Alienation is a very real and tragic tact one parent takes against the other, using the kids as the pawns.
The founder of the PAS group I attend is a Jewish nurse. I’ll let her know you consider her a holocaust denier.
“Yes, Anon. Mothers are the child abusers; men are falsely accused of all sorts of heinous crimes they have not committed; women are liars and are wicked and evil and manipulative; men are good and just and right and they are being improperly maligned by women constantly; Richard Gardner committed suicide because his footsies hurt; and in spite of all this, you are not a woman-hater.”
People are people. People are humans. Women are not all good. Men are not all good.
That’s my message.
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.
Comparing me to some holocaust denier goes to show the vapidity of your argument and the immoral depths you are willing to plow to try to make some point for your argument.
My father was, at various times, an Elder, a Deacon, or a Trustee in his church congregation. He was active also in the Boy Scout Troop sponsored by the church.
When he retired at 63, he moved to a different state. He joined a different denomination – but similar – church. The Board of Elders was self-perpetuating. My father made himself useful as the Congregation Secretary, a greeter, an usher, the guy who took icewater to the Sunday School classrooms. A Thursday morning women’s group invited him to be their Thursday morning daycare guy. Eventually, he worked in the Sunday morning nursery during the service that followed his service. There was always another attendant. As my dad got into his 70’s, he left diaper-changing to the younger attendant for fear of dropping a baby, but he would stand over a crib and hold a bottle.
As my father got older, and church membership became younger, some young parents told the Elders they were wondering why a creepy old guy would even want to be in the nursery. They would drop out if the church left him in that capacity. The Board of Elders established that only married couples could serve – together – in the nursery. Since my mother didn’t attend church with my father, he was banished from the nursery. His feelings were incredibly hurt. After a life of service out of the limelight at two churches, “They’re calling me a child-molester.”
My father limited his role to greeter and usher. His feelings remained hurt.
Finally, an Elder asked the board why it would value new members over a longtime member who’d performed a number low-profile, but neccessary, roles.
The Elder Board reversed its earlier decision and determined that the nursery should be staffed by two church members, a male and a female, who need not be married to each other. My father stayed out of the Sunday nursery but returned to the Thursday morning women’s meeting as their daycare attendant. The kids were too old for diapers; he read stories and served juice. The ladies group had been supportive of him; the nursery leaders had stayed silent.
At 87, he is still the greeter, but he dropped the Thursday morning role and ushering due to his own frailty.
Yes, Anon. Mothers are the child abusers; men are falsely accused of all sorts of heinous crimes they have not committed; women are liars and are wicked and evil and manipulative; men are good and just and right and they are being improperly maligned by women constantly; Richard Gardner committed suicide because his footsies hurt; and in spite of all this, you are not a woman-hater.
But I’m a man-hater.
Oh well, I guess I have to accept these facts because I cannot disprove them.
Over on the Propaganda thread, some Nazi caught me too, because I couldn’t prove that Jews had attacked Germany to cause WWII. It’s OK; I’m getting used to not being able to prove my silly theories.
Although, that part about Gardner and the knife…
Right, and if I could, I would definitely wear my fingers to the bone typing up the answers to your assertions. But answer this, Anon: Why are these women so successful at making so many people think so many men are so terrible, HUH? It just doesn’t stand to reason. We all KNOW that men are so good and women are so wicked; we’ve been abused by our mothers and loved and protected by our fathers. We’ve been exploited by females and saved by males. We’ve been treated with respect and kindness by men and treated like dirt by women. We’ve seen the whole society manipulated into a ridiculous situation where they think the vicious women are being raped and abused by these heroic, long-suffering men. WHAT IS WRONG WITH FOLKS that they persist in all these myths?
All of this is just a strawman.
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.
“Why are these women so successful at making so many people think so many men are so terrible”
Why do so many people think that rape victims must have done something wrong?
Why do so many people blame the victim?
Why do so many people believe crazy bitches when they accuse men of the most terrible crimes and offer no evidence?
It’s really a good question you’ve asked Malisha, too bad you don’t have the guts to answer it honestly.
Oh, and while you’re at it, tell me this: How DID Richard Gardner manage to stab himself 6 times to commit suicide? That’s one of my favorites.
For ref:
http://cincinnatipas.com/dr-richardgardnerautopsy.html
Oh — one time I was speaking with Dr. Gardner’s wife, also a psychiatrist. I asked her, “Do you think that Dr. Gardner believes that ONLY women make false allegations of sexual abuse?” She said that it appeared so. I asked, “Wouldn’t that mean that there is a terrible thing that is only done by women and not by men, and that it follows that women are generally more wicked than men are in general?” She agreed and added, “I generally try to testify for men at times and for women at other times, so that it does not appear that I favor one gender over the other, but he does have a record of only testifying against women, I agree.”
Right, and if I could, I would definitely wear my fingers to the bone typing up the answers to your assertions. But answer this, Anon: Why are these women so successful at making so many people think so many men are so terrible, HUH? It just doesn’t stand to reason. We all KNOW that men are so good and women are so wicked; we’ve been abused by our mothers and loved and protected by our fathers. We’ve been exploited by females and saved by males. We’ve been treated with respect and kindness by men and treated like dirt by women. We’ve seen the whole society manipulated into a ridiculous situation where they think the vicious women are being raped and abused by these heroic, long-suffering men. WHAT IS WRONG WITH FOLKS that they persist in all these myths?
“Anyone with 2 brain cells to scrape together” should answer these pressing questions, because it just doesn’t make sense. And those two brain cells should have both x and y chromosomes, just to be fair.
“I guess we are presuming it was a woman — did the store say so?”
Yes, the store said so, and 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.
“The reason I’m not trying to prove this is” because you can’t.
Anon, I thought of you when I posted that and I fully expected the whole response you gave me and Besharov etc. etc. and I wonder why you didn’t throw in Dr. Richard Gardner and Dr. Arthur Green as well.
The reason your statistics appear to “prove” that mothers are usually abusers and fathers are usually protectors who are also falsely accused is that cases where children complain against their fathers get treated much differently in court (“That’s just happening because the mother made the child say it”) than complaints against mother (“That horrible woman should never see her child again”). The reason I’m not trying to prove this is that it doesn’t matter; the more it has been proven in study after study, the more it is disregarded by men who wish to see all complaints against ANY OF THEM as the work of horrible women who let their man-hatred take over their poor bitchy lives. It’s boring.
Case in point: The mom in Texas who allegedly salt-poisoned her foster child on the way to adopting him. That’s listed in the statistics, Anon, as a mother killing her child. Check it out. http://lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson337.html
In Iowa a child of three years old had a butterfly rupture of her hymen, and specifically told a pediatrician and two other doctors that her father had “put in me hard” and this had happened at a time when the only person she had been with was the father, but that case ended with the father having sole custody and the mother not being allowed to see her child for over three years because she had allegedly “overreacted.” A pediatrician had used the slides of that child’s injury for teaching slides in her pediatric gynecology course at UCLA to show what rape cases looked like in Tanner I stage girls. That pediatrics professor flew to Iowa to testify in the case and still it lost; she was found in the ladies’ room of the court house, sick to her stomach, unable to pull herself together, because she had never imagined that there was such a perverted thing going on in American courts. And that case was listed in the statistics as NO ABUSE. So where you get your statistics from is heavily dependent upon what a court somewhere SAYS about what happened.
Remember, no court in China would produce statistics saying the government had abused any of the Chinese people either. Nor would a court in Iran declare a woman to have been subjected to unfairness or violence.
Nor would I worry how many of your numbers you flung around. MOST CHILDREN who are sexually abused ARE sexually abused by older male family members or older males who are in positions of authority like coaches, priests or other clergy, teachers, scoutmasters, etc. But when you see a 24 year old female teacher sexually abusing a 16-year-old student, that grabs the headlines for as long as the male teachers have been around grabbing the girls’ asses in between classes.
Bring me another volley of those scary numbers, but here’s my general advice: Don’t worry about old men reading books in the children’s section; worry about whoever in the home or school or church seems to exert an inordinate amount of control IF THE KIDS SHOW SIGNS OF TROUBLE.
You can be as disdainful and angry about whatever woman (I guess we are presuming it was a woman — did the store say so?) “reported” the guy reading — I would be madder than hell myself — but remember, the idiots who kicked the reader out were responsible for their behavior. They did not have to do that and they shouldn’t have done that.
The fact remains: Strangers are treated with suspicion that is unwarranted while real complaints against real molesters, within the family, are mishandled routinely in the most egregious ways. And there is NO SOLUTION to that problem because everything takes place in secrecy both in the families and in the family courts.
By the way, although many people were very upset about what was done to poor Dr. Foretich, his daughters from two different marriages, with two different mothers WHO DID NOT LIKE EACH OTHER AT ALL, both grew up and neither recanted their complaints about his having molested them, yet not a single court anywhere in the country made a finding that there was any kind of abuse of either girl. Two more numbers that were not in the statistics that you quote.
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.
The encounter should have gone like this:
“Thank you ma’am for reporting on a man making a phone call as a child molester, perhaps you would be interested in our political science section maybe this book, “McCarthyism” or this book, “Witch hunts”, or this book, “Crazy bitches and the problems they pose”
and
“Sir, welcome to BN and if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, please let me know. I do feel I should warn you, some crazy bitch just made the most serious and horrible accusation against you. I am sorry such pathology still exists in women, but I thought you best be warned. Anyway, if I can help you with your purchases today, please let me know.”
Would Barns and Noble management issued an apology had the gentleman in question been a bus driver, postal worker or city street maintenance worker?
I think not.
“Maybe, maybe not.”
“Suppose they didn’t and then suppose that the patron had been right. ”
Why don’t you tell us how many false positives there are for every false negative? And what the actual rate of abuse of kids in bookstores is.
You sound like TSA asswipes justifying their groping.
“OK. but I’ll be nearby if you need any help.”
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”.
“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.”
Maybe, maybe not.
For years I have served pro bono as attorney ad litem for abused children. I work extensively with social services, law enforcement, children’s courts, and government officials on child abuse and foster care issues.
And through it all I have noticed the role that “intuition” has played discovering and preventing further abuse of children. I don’t know what vibes the concerned patron felt, but once she complained the employees of B&N were compelled to respond.
Suppose they didn’t and then suppose that the patron had been right. And then suppose two days later the woman is being interviewed live on TV about the egregious failure of B&N to heed her warnings. Not good for the kid and not good for B&N.
Compelled to respond, but not to respond stupidly.
A better approach: “Excuse me, sir; may I be of any assistance? OK. but I’ll be nearby if you need any help.”
Somebody needs to up their training program.
@bfm,
There are at least two activities here:
1. Reporting activity
2. Responding to reported activity
I will never tell anyone they shouldn’t report activity they think it suspicious.
Still everyone may wish to consider if the behavior they see is really suspicious or not. Some person sitting on the floor in the BN children’s section is not suspicious. Some person sitting on a bench at a tot park is still not suspicious.
Then there is responding to reported activity.
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.
At the BN, after hearing the report, a BN employee could have responded by saying, “Thank you ma’am for letting me know, let me see what I can do.” and then approaching the man and saying, “Sir, do you need any help today? Can I help you find a book or gift?”
Instead due to poor training or feminist taught hatred of men the BN employee went full retard and kicked the guy out, made worse by the inherent misandry and systemic matriarchal oppression from BN corporate in backing up the employee and not simply realizing their error and apologizing and making it right.
Gee, You don’t think the apology had anything to do with the fact that Mr. Amin went to the Arizona Republic and they contacted B&N and then wrote the story up on Pg 1?
Malisha your incorrect (and possibly intentionally so) post is a prime contributor to the stranger danger that afflicts society and oppresses men.
I do appreciate how you tried to obliquely justify stranger danger by falsely claiming it is justified by mothers trying to protect their kids.
@Malisha,
Regarding your incorrect and misandric statement that “if the child’s mother gets riled up about it she is punished ”
First let’s remember that:
“#7: Most child abuse and parental murder of children is committed by mothers, not� fathers.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999). See: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ncands97/s7.htm. Child abuse perpetrators are 62.3% female.� Child fatality perpetrators are 62.8% female. The mother/father ratio is actually greater than this, because many of the male abusers counted are not the biological fathers but instead step?fathers, boyfriends, etc.
Source on murders of children by single parents: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, Third National Incidence Study Of Child Abuse and Neglect: Final Report Appendices (Washington D.C., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1997, pp. A?63?A?64.� The estimated total is 264 parental murders of children committed by single custodial mothers and 11 by single custodial fathers.� There are roughly five times as many single custodial mothers as single custodial fathers.
Source: Warren Farrell, Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love, Penguin Putnam Inc, 2001, pp 75-77.”
#13: Children are 88% more likely to be seriously injured from abuse or neglect by their mothers than by their fathers.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, Child Maltreatment 1997: Reports from the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (Washington DC, :GPO, 1999).� It is discussed in Father and Child Reunion by Warren Farrell, page 76.
#23: “According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ new report Child Maltreatment 2004, when one parent is acting without the involvement of the other parent, mothers are almost three times as likely to kill their children as fathers are, and are more than twice as likely to abuse them.”
Source: Child Maltreatment 2004, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. According to Figure 4-2 “Perpetrator Relationships of Fatalities, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004″ here, child fatalities perpetrated by mothers or by “mother and other [not father]” comprise 40.6% of all child fatalities. Figure 4-2 also shows that fatalities perpetrated by fathers or by “father and other [not mother]” comprise 15.6% of all child fatalities. According to Figure 3-6 “Victims by Perpetrator Relationship, 2004 Child Maltreatment 2004,” here child abuse perpetrated by mothers or by “mother and other [not father]” comprise 45.6% of all child abuse. Figure 3-6 also shows that abuse perpetrated by fathers or by “father and other [not mother]” comprise 19.5% of all child abuse.
Second let’s also acknowledge
#10: The vast majority of accusations of child sexual abuse made during custody battles are false, unfounded or unsubstantiated. Source: Douglas J. Besharov and Lisa A. Laumann, “Child Abuse Reporting,” Social Science and Modern Society, Vol. 33, May/June, 1996, p. 42.
Source: Blush, Gordon & Ross, Karol, 1986, The SAID Syndrome. Sterling Heights, MI: Family and Conciliation Courts Review.
@anon
So if I understand your remarks regarding the statistics of child abuse the most suspicious thing in a Barns and Noble is likely to be a birth mother sitting with her children in the children’s book section?
I don’t mean to sound a bit cynical, but I wonder where I should report suspicious activity when I see it. Do you think there is any chance I might be called alarmist (or worse) if I start reporting mothers and their children – ‘yes officer, when I first say them she was reading a book to them’.
Actually, I agree that this is a serious issue. The problem is how reasonable people can identify problems in a timely manner.
I don’t have an answer. But the experts that I have heard don’t seem to have good solutions either.
I still remember the PSA announcement that suggested reporting the slightest suspicion. Not only does that run the risk of damaging families where no problem exists. It also runs the risk of inundating enforcement officials, the judicial system, and community resources with a flood of baseless accusations.
This is a serious problem. We need better solutions.
@Frankly,
You should probably be off correcting the wiki then which seems to disagree with you in every detail.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness
The wiki article is largely based on MIT Professor Ruth Perry’s article, A Short History of the Term ‘Politically Correct and is widely quoted by academics.
New Left rhetoric
By 1970, New Left proponents had adopted the term political correctness.[1] In the essay The Black Woman, Toni Cade Bambara says: “. . . a man cannot be politically correct and a [male] chauvinist too.” The New Left later re-appropriated the term political correctness as satirical self-criticism; per Debra Shultz: “Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the New Left, feminists, and progressives . . . used their term politically correct ironically, as a guard against their own orthodoxy in social change efforts”.[1][2][6] Hence, it is a popular English usage in the underground comic book Merton of the Movement, by Bobby London, while ideologically sound, an alternative term, followed a like lexical path, appearing in Bart Dickon’s satirical comic strips.[1][7] Moreover, Ellen Willis says: ” . . . in the early ’80s, when feminists used the term political correctness, it was used to refer sarcastically to the anti-pornography movement’s efforts to define a ‘feminist sexuality’ “.[8]