Men's Rights Redditors: Don't help kids in distress, because a "hambeast" might accuse you of molesting her "crotchdumpling."

Piss off, underpants, you’re not wanted here.

“Is The Courier Mail right wing paper? ”

It’s owned by Rupert Murdoch and thus, yes. People who comment on media sites in Australia also tend to be those who have drunk deeply from the well of ignorance and are right out of the milk of compassion. They are not, however, the majority, thank fuck.

Also, be decent humans, and be nice to kidlets.

Kidlets are important, and the kidlet you save just might be your doctor, someday. Or the president. Or just a really, really good person.

Still think Howard upthread nailed it, dead on.

Crotchdumplings, not kidlets. Where is my crotchdumpling anyways?

Not sure if someone else said this first, but an alternate take to this could be that the list of “Do nots” is more a tirade of self pity/guilt trip. Similar to how dudebros’ reactions to someone speaking against street harassment is “Waaah feminists/women are saying I can’t be attracted to a woman ever!” they’re saying, “Waaah feminists/women are making it too dangerous to be a decent human being! I would help a child in danger, but I can’t without risking jail. Don’t like it? Too bad, feminists, it’s your fault! The blood is on your hands, not mine!”

…then again, with the specific “Don’t call the police” bit, that may be less likely.

But I’m the sort who picks up toys when kids drop them while their adult is shopping and smiles at babies.

You are a sycoinfant.

I mean if it’s such a big imposition to take the half second to say thanks you must be a really important life saving whatever or a jerk. most jerk i know don’t care that they are jerks. life savers get a pass. simple as that.

See, this is exactly what I was talking about. A second ago this person was just minding zir own business and under no obligation to interact with you. But now, because of something you did, suddenly they’re a jerk if they don’t acknowledge you.

Isn’t that rather similar to some guy yelling “Smile!” at a woman and then calling her a bitch if she doesn’t respond?

If you’re doing things in the hope of manipulating someone into feeling obligated to you, you’re not being nice, you’re being a manipulative asshole. Also childish and petulant. I’d rather interact with a real kid, they’re cuter.

Speaking of which! Favorite random kid interaction last year was right before Christmas, waiting in line to pay for something at Old Navy, where I spotted a kid who was starting to get fussy and squirming in the already overloaded arms of his obviously stressed-out dad. So, when I caught the kid’s eye, I started making cute faces, and then talking to him and showing him toys from the bins that were around, and generally tried to keep him entertained and distracted so he wouldn’t get fussy and have a meltdown in the middle of the store. Kid was happy, I was happy, dad was able to pay for his stuff without having to worry about the kid. No “omg why didn’t you thank me, preferably with sex, you jerk” necessary because I wasn’t doing it because I wanted something in return, I just felt bad for both kid and dad because shopping right before Christmas is a stressful pain in the ass, and I like kids.

TL;DR if people regularly look annoyed and refuse to acknowledge you when you’re “doing something nice for them”, it’s because they can tell you’re not really being nice at all.

Believe or fucking not, The Telegraph (UK) and others have jumped on this pedophile defense/who cares about victims, what about the menz non-story as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10953056/Open-thread-as-a-man-would-you-help-a-child-in-distress.html

Open thread: as a man, would you help a child in distress?
In the wake of the Rolf Harris conviction, is society now less trusting of men generally? We want to hear your views

This was the theme of BBC Radio 5 Live’s breakfast phone-in yesterday – men were asked whether they would now think twice about interacting with children other than their own, even if it was a child in distress.
One listener who texted the programme revealed just how much the current climate of fear and suspicion is affecting male behaviour. “If I came across a lost or distressed child, I would not hold them by the hand,” he said. “I would roll up a newspaper or use a belt and get them to hang on to that.”
While that reaction may seem extreme, it illustrates how the Harris case appears to have had the potential to warp men’s natural instincts and make them modify their behaviour to an alarming degree.

Writing in the Times today (£), the columnist David Aaronovitch sums up the growing mistrust of men that seems to have built up over the past few years.
“If Rolf, why not any of us men?” he writes. “Don’t we all have (excuse me) cocks and desires? Aren’t we, all of us, just possibly prey to certain impulses — should the opportunity arise, should the chance thrust itself at us? No. No. Of course not. Most men would no more seduce their 13-year-old daughter’s friend than they would have sex with a sheep.”
But as Aaronovitch goes on to say, just because we can trust ourselves, it doesn’t automatically follow that society will trust us. The damage caused by Harris, Hall and Savile could have a lasting impact on male behaviour, and the way men are perceived in public when in the vicinity of vulnerable children.
As a father of two daughters, I like to think that I would still instinctively step in to help a distressed child should the situation arise. More importantly, I would hope that should my own children ever find themselves lost or in need of help, a stranger – male or female – would step in, instead of being paralysed by a fear of being labelled a potential paedophile.

So when people hear about a child molester being prosecuted the first person they worry about is themselves? They have no interest in discussing actual victims because they really need to discuss whether they should let a hypothetical child die in front of them. I give up, people are terrible.

The tone really is “gosh, it’s a shame we found out about all those child abusers, since it might make people trust me less”. Deal with your own shit, guys, stop trying to displace it onto the rest of society.

I do feel the need to clarify that I do recognize a distinction between acts done for the purpose of getting a particular response and acts done just to be nice but with the expectation of getting a particular response. But I still don’t think you’re ever owed a particular response to an unsolicited act of kindness.

For instance, if you put a bunch of effort into throwing an amazing surprise party for a friend, you’re running the risk that zie will not be happy at all because zie was really tired and just wanted to have a low-key birthday, and that is zir right. If you wanted a guarantee that zie would be grateful, you should have asked asked if zie wanted a party (ie, initiated a voluntary social contract).

Not that I’m going to make this my hill to die on or anything (and, yes, I am polite to people who hold doors for me) (usually), but the question is: Why do you have the right to ask anything, small or large, of a total stranger who has shown no sign of interest in interacting with you? Because that idea just rubs me the wrong way.

Cassandra: Yeah, it’s not as if telling them you’ve had the vasectomy magically makes them able to impregnate themselves, so what’s the point in not telling them?

The point is that when she says, “I’m pregnant” these dudes can say, “so what, it’s not mine” and then go all, “gotcha” because they just tricked a woman who was going to play them for ta beta chump. She either has to admit to her “Alpha” that she’s pregnant (and get dumped, Ha-Ha), or find another beta in a hurry.

By, “playing” the woman they’ve proved they aren’t the betas they are afraid they are.

But if they tell her, “I’ve had a vasectomy” then, should they be betas, they won’t be getting any of that sweet HB10 loving.

It’s psychology.

Or something.