OK, two very different things today – your job is to say which is the most distasteful and why (both via @emmakgreening). First up is this horrible footage from an American game show host….
Second is this lovely graphic from the 1970s telling parents how to bring up boys and girls….
Which is the most distasteful and why?
The second. Assuming both had comparable reach and were meant for an young audience, I see the latter as more corrupting and having a longer-lasting effect on young minds.
I agree with Krishna… in terms of long lasting impressions… perhaps second one is worse… but at the sight of it… the first one makes me want to castrate the pervert..
I agree.
The disturbing elements of the first video are only there in the to modern paedophile concerns. The host is so completely innocent that it appears terrible, but the idea that he was seriously after the children is so alien to him (and the audience) that the creepiness which modern media has caused us to see just was not there.
The sexual distinguishing of roles, on the other hand, is actually disturbing because it was written at a time when what is being portrayed was known to be wrong.
I missed out the word ‘context’ and wrote ‘to’ instead of ‘of’.
Feel free to substitute and add wherever it makes most sense to you.
I say the video is more distasteful.
The gender roles depicted in the image were starting to be outdated even in the 1970s.
Paedophilia, on the other hand, is timeless.
This.
One assumes these parents have seen this show and know what they are getting their kids into. That’s more disturbing than the video.
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG
The first one…
OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMG…
D:
The first one is worse.The host almost molests the kids while the respective moms look on. Imagine what the host would have done to his own kids.
I agree, that the first one is worse. I don’t agree that the host almost molested the kids. He did not do it almost, he molested the kids. What he did is rightfully a criminal offense, at least in Germany, where i come from. The second one is rather funny from todays perspective. The first one is disgusting. But i think, at that time, child-molestation was a “don’t talk about it”-matter, which may be the reason that the recent scandals about priests molesting chidren did not come about earlier – you wouldn’t talk about it…
I find the first one much more distasteful – it just makes me feel like I want to punch that guy in the face. I don’t think it’s necessarily that he’s a dirty old man though, I think it’s more about the fact that he’s imposing himself irrepressibly on these girls who obviously have no desire (if not negative desire) to kiss him. No means no.
The second one is so ludicrous that it’s funny. I certainly don’t agree with the past in its perception of gender roles, but I accept that we have moved on from that kind of thinking and I feel comfortable laughing at it. I do however also accept that that kind of thinking is still rife in society, but we all know it is wrong and knowing it is a problem is half the battle to eradicating it.
OK, they’re both pretty bad, but honestly I’d say #2. Assuming people followed it’s advice that has seriously lasting implications. The first one is only a momentary boatload of creepiness. Which was for some reason edited to slow-mo all the creepy parts. Smooth.
The first one is just intolerably creepy. The second one is offensive and condescending, but at least you can laugh at it, but the first makes you want to act. It’s hard to imagine letting that man near children.
[…] Which of these is the most distasteful? « Richard Wiseman's Blog Share and Enjoy: […]
I go for the first one. It made my skin crawl watching it. If someone behaved that way to my daughter..
The second is almost funny it is so sexist. I’m sure such attitudes still exist, but they would be in the tiny minority in most places. It is laughable to modern sensibilities. Not so much the first video.
Oh good lord. I found myself cringing in disgust at the first one. What a disgusting guy. I found myself laughing out loud at the second one at how absolutely ridiculously stupid it was — a caricature of outdated gender views.
So, which is more distasteful? Clearly the first. I found myself disgusted — a very similar feeling to ‘distaste’. Like I want to vomit. It’s no accident the word distaste and disgust are very similar — one is felt with your tongue, the other with your stomach.
The outdated gender views didn’t give me the slightest bit of “bad taste” or “bad stomach” feelings, it gave me a good laugh at stupidity, but no visceral repulsion that something truly distasteful should provoke.
Yes, I totally thought the second one was funny, too. And adorable. “Oh, us in the past! How silly we were!”
The first one. Disgusting.
first one
the first one is much much much more distasteful … in fact it is hard to imagine that this show was really filmed … it just induces so much revulsion … the kids who have undergone this will remember this as a ugly slimy experience even years after … maybe for life.
the second one on the other hand is something which anybody would easily toss away … after all there is no one personally molesting someone … no kid would take it seriously (say) after crossing 18 years of age.
The game show is actually Canadian not American and also revolting to say the least.
Ah yes. Canada. My favorite American country not in America.
You know Canada is in America, right?
The first one’s scary. The second one’s almost cute in it’s outdatedness.
“Girls use what boys invent.” Oh really? Too bad a man didn’t invent the medical syringe or the elevated railway or the rotary engine or the submarine lamp and telescope.
But I digress the second although patronising can be placed into context of society’s expectations at the time. In the 70s most women were expected to do the what was outlined in the example and there’s nothing belittling about being a good housekeeper or nurse etc.
As for the first one, although an older man kissing children isn’t inherently wrong i.e. you can’t call the man a pedophile solely because he likes being affectionate towards young children; woman in particular enjoying kissing and cuddling children that aren’t related to them. The video was almost manipulated to stress a point therefore it’s difficult to know what actually took place.
Therefore I’d have to conclude the second piece as being more distasteful only because it’s clear enough to judge.
“Too bad a man didn’t invent the medical syringe or the elevated railway or the rotary engine or the submarine lamp and telescope.”
While I understand your point, you are wrong in 3 out of 4 cases:
Medical syringe – Francis Rynd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypodermic_needle#History
Elevated railway – If you are talking about Mary Walton, she did not invent the elevated railway. She invented noise dampeners for elevated railways.
http://inventors.about.com/od/wstartinventors/a/Mary_Walton.htm
Rotary engine – Felix Millet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine#History
Whilst I agree with your theme entirely, your examples are:
Medical Syringe – Celsus (or, for the modern hypodermic, Ammar ibn Ali al-Mawsili)
Elevated Railway – Joe V. Meigs (Maybe you are referring to Mary Walton?)
Rotary Engine – Felix Millet
Submarine lamp – Sarah Mather – Indeed a woman!
Telescope – Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Janssen or Jacob Metius (or for modern telescopes, Galileo himself)
So, as I understand it, only 1 out of the 5 example is a woman?
It was really only meant to highlight a point. I’m not sure as to the extent of the invention itself, it could be an Edison lightbulb scenario; but from what I discovered:
Medical syringe: Letitia Geer
Elevated Railway: Mary Walton (though I think she invented the dampners for the railroad system)
Rotary Engine: Margaret Knight
Submarine lamp and telescope (sorry that was a typo): Sarah Mather
I was just pointing out the absurdity of the cartoon, I didn’t really expect anyone to pick me up on it but nice work!😉
I don’t know, if this is intentional, but wouldn’t labelling them “horrible footage” and “lovely grahic” immensely influence the results?
Besides that there are too many variables to consider: video vs print, colour vs b&w, different topics, etc.
If the second stimulus had been a video of the same man forcing girls to dress up and act as stewardesses and boys as pilots, it would probably be as disturbing. But from these the horrible footage “wins”.
Oh, I’m pretty certain it was intentional. Though I am surprised by how many people are claiming they find the “lovely graphic” more distasteful.
I hate both, but the second one made me retch.
I am utterly shocked at the fact that some readers actually declared that a ridiculous and harmless cartoon is more disgusting that a pervert in action.
Boggles your f-ing mind, doesn’t it?
I’m not saying I agree that the second one is worse, however, I wouldn’t call it “harmless”, as this kind of sexism has long-reaching affects on all women everywhere, while an unwanted, close-mouthed, one-time kiss might not scar the child for life and probably does not affect millions of girls for their entire futures.
Lots of kids have put up with unwanted affection from adults. It’s almost a cliche now to have the fat, old auntie smother a child with hugs and kisses when she comes for a visit.
Disgusting, certainly, but I’m not so certain that it’s miles apart from the damage done by the second one.
The first one without a doubt. What others have said: The cartoon is so outdated that it’s almost funny. I would be able to use it to teach my kids they can be whatever they like. The first one is a timeless abuse of power and makes you want to act. I watched it without sound and still couldn’t finish it. It’s disgusting.
First one, no doubt.
70’s are gone, but under a 2010 perspective sexism is a laughable issue for most of us, peadophilia is not.
what would any of those young girls think when someone approaches close to their faces, like a dentist would do?
The most distasteful is clearly the first one, for me. Disgusting, revolting, aaaaaah.
I’d rather laugh about the second one, and thank god things have (a bit) changed!
The first one is creepy, and I wouldn’t let the guy come anywhere near my daughter. But I think the stereotypes propagated by №2 are much more dangerous. And they are not as outdated as some commenters suggest.
I find this creepy too, but it’s weird how people react to this…
Imagine being a dad and love kids.
That’s not even allowed anymore!
I know everyone has become scared, there are a lot of pedophiles.
But come on people! Don’t be so American
a.) He’s not their Dad (though that would bring up a whole new host of issues).
b.) People who innocently “love kids” do not make vaguely sexual remarks to them nor do they threaten kids in order to get the kids to kiss them (i.e. “You won’t kiss me? Well then I guess you can’t win the show”).
I’d never classify being repulsed by textbook child predator behavior as something that relates to a nationality, and any parent (or anyone) in their right mind would be deeply alarmed by this video.
The cartoon is disturbing in a “How could our society have been so staggeringly stupid?” kind of way that makes you shake your head and be thankful for the progress we’ve made, but that video absolutely made my skin crawl.
If that was my daughter, the last thing the host would have seen was my fist coming at his face as I stormed the set from the audience and rescued her from his unwelcome and staggeringly inappropriate advances. Just thinking about those poor girls makes me furious.
The government should show this clip as a Public Service Announcement on TV for raising awareness about protecting kids from child predators.
Someone call Chris Hansen. Quick.
I know a lot of men who are great with kids, who don’t behave inappropriately.
That video was completely inappropriate. I figure if it is something a boss could get sued for sexual harassment for doing to a subordinate, then doing it to a child is worse. That guy applied threats and subterfuge, violated the kids’ personal space, talked about their physical attributes and asked personal questions, teased and pressured them, and wouldn’t take no for an answer. He needs to be kept away from children.
As for the second disturbing thing, it was really disturbing too, but parents can throw out nonsense like that. Mine did, and I was raised in the 70s.
@ JE, in reply to:
“That video was completely inappropriate. I figure if it is something a boss could get sued for sexual harassment for doing to a subordinate, then doing it to a child is worse. That guy applied threats and subterfuge, violated the kids’ personal space, talked about their physical attributes and asked personal questions, teased and pressured them, and wouldn’t take no for an answer. He needs to be kept away from children.”
Well said.
The video is absolutely disgusting … What about Mom? As repugnant as the man because not defend his daughter … man and woman are sick.
The second one is a mirror of what people lived in those days … discrimination of women…
Both speak of abuse to others … but the first is the worst.
I’ve seen that cartoon on another blog recently. I believe it is a recent satire on 1970’s attitudes and not the genuine article, but I haven’t yet tracked down the source. Does anyone know where it’s from?
I don’t see the problem with the second one? (*runs for cover*)
Seriously though – the first one is incredibly creepy.
I haven’t read any of the posts yet so I don’t know at this time how others feel but for me…..well you can break stereotypes BUT once a pervert always a pervert…..can’t fix them nor cure them so I would have to say the pervert is by far the most disgusting…..ugh….double ugh…
Who knew reality television had such an early inception? And now it’s time for….”Paedophile Quiz Show”!
I don’t think “distasteful” is quite the term I’d use for either. “Distasteful” is telling crass jokes, it’s farting in the lift, it’s wearing sandals with socks.
The video is bogglingly horrible. That man is either predating on those children, or sees nothing wrong with adults who do so. Either way, I’m astounded that that behaviour was allowed to air. Even back then, people were aware of the concept of child sexual assault and “molestation”, and it was taken seriously.
The cartoon? Well, I don’t know. I find it hard to believe it’s genuine and not a satire (as Gammidgy suggests). 1950s, maybe, but 1970s? If it is genuine, it’s perhaps a deliberate attempt to counter those nasty “women’s libbers” as we were known, ham-fisted counter-propaganda. There is no way that it was just a mirror of the way people lived back then, because it’s far too pointed.
The video is seriously creepy. The host is a creep, not necessarily a pervert or worse. There is no way he would get away with that sort of behaviour nowadays.
The cartoon image is obviously tongue-in-cheek and if viewed with that in mind is harmless, even funny.
Video, showing real behaviour, is therefore far worse.
The first one, the video of the game show host actually made me feel physically sick! As a mother of a young 4 year old girl that just made me go cold!!! Disgusting perverted man!!!
The second one was slightly annoying but nowhere near as distasteful as the video!!
The video clip is very distasteful and worryingly disturbing…the girls looked quite uncomfortable. That guy is very creepy.
You know in this day and age I don’t find the drawing of ‘How to bring up a boy and a girl’ ditsteful at all. I wish more people would realise that male and females are ‘wired’ differently…women are inclined to lean toward household problems whereas men are inclined to be the provider etc…Take for example men and women in the Armed Forces, women aren’t allowed to fight – why do you think that is? Yes women are making leaps and bounds in the work force and many are in very powerful positions, but I really do believe the two sexes aren’t and never will be equal. And FYI – I am a woman.
I wouldn’t say either of the sexes were superior- they’re just different. Apart from that I totally agree. We are different and should be treated thus.
Fuck that. Women and men do not “lean towards” their respective roles, they’re driven towards them.
In a recent study of fearlessness in toddlers, researchers gave some toddlers a some inclines to crawl up, varying the steepness.
There was NO difference between the genders for fear or trepidation of more dangerous obstacles.
There was, however, a difference in how their mothers acted.
Mothers of sons let their sons climb all over whatever with little apparent concern for their safety. Mothers of daughters were more fearful and began assuming their daughters inability to complete the climb at much less steep levels than the boys.
When told from before you can walk that you can’t do that, or you’re supposed to do this, people tend to grow up believing that their inclinations are “natural” and that they’re “wired” for a certain type of behaviour over others.
~Joreth
Baking is chemistry you can eat
The first one, given that the second is satire (and from far more recent times than the ’70s).
The second one isn’t distasteful at all, as it’s a parody.
The video disturbed me way more than the book. Although the book depicts women as the runner up in careers it isn’t so much troubling as it is irritating. The second one however is a real man doing real interaction to real kids. A book can be explained, interpreted, or shunned altogether. A rather disturbing man on the other hand isn’t so easily handled.
The video, because the bloke appears to be a paedophile… which trumps pretty much anything in the taste department.
How the f*ck is he allowed to do that, and why hasn’t he been hunted down and brutally murdered?
I find the video more disturbing to watch, and agree with the other people who have commented that the second is just a sign of the times and we have moved on from there.
The second one is not a parody or satire. It is reality in most parts of the world, at least here in germany. How many female pilots you have seen? How many female presidents of the U.S.A.? It says “Boys/Girls ARE x” not “SHOULD BE x”. Whats wrong with saying the truth? OK, to be political correct it could say “Girls should be Pilots/Presidents too” – which is also my private opinion and the way I educate my daugthers. But the reality looks different.
The video is another category and that guy looks not harmless at all.
The first one
I think people are seeing the first one through modern eyes as well. I don’t think there was much of a ‘paedophile scare’ back then, so stealing kisses from little girls would probably have been seen as funny or cute, which I think is what the host is going for. He fully expects the shy responses, the audience just likes seeing the kids put on the spot like that (kind of like dressing a monkey up in human clothes for laughs, he’s asking questions about ‘dating’ which everybody knows is a behaviour kids that age don’t show yet). I think it would actually have been seen as much more innocent than doing the same with older women, back in those days.
That’s not to say that it’s acceptable — it’s as sexist and reprehensible as the cartoon (if it’s not a satire). Both are confirming stereotypical gender roles (girls are shy and cute vs girls are servile), which society has only just started to move past in out own era.
So yeah, both are creepy, but I think that both are an exponent of the era, and lots of people on here don’t seem to see that in the first one.
there were perverts in that day and time …..just no one would talk about….it was pushed into that closet along with strange uncle bob….
Of course there were, I’m not denying that. I’m just saying that that’s the context we now automatically jump to, while in that era, what the host was doing would probably be seen as joking around (and I believe that’s all he intended to do, as well).
I totally agree with you, Anna. I don’t agree with the paedophile-hysteria these days – it is important for children to have contact to a diverse range of adults without suspecting everyone of them of ulterior motives.
However, the way the host kept going when the children clearly didn’t want him to made me shudder. I found it a lot more distasteful than the cartoon.
Yeah, it IS distasteful, I fully agree, but more in a sense of this guy taking a stupid joke too far (ooh, look at the squirming kids, how funny) than in a sexual sense.
I know the cartoon is satire, but had it been real, I’d consider it just as distasteful. The TV host is being a prick, but the cartoon is basically showing how half a generation of people was being taught to deny their full potential because they had the ‘wrong’ genitalia. That’s pretty creepy as well, even if modern day people seem to think it’s just some harmless piece of history.
(It’s Berber, by the way — Anna is my middle name ;))
ah sorry, I always thought of Berber as your surname for some reason… My apologies.
I guess the cartoon just looks too silly for me to take it seriously. About the quiz show: I agree that it’s meant to look like a stupid joke gone too far, but to me it does look creepy in a sexual sense.
Incidentally, I also have terrible trouble seeing the funny side of monkeys dressed up in human clothes.
Oh I agree with you there, I just meant it’s the same kind of stupid joke. Hey, let’s put animals in a human context/kids in a grown-up context and see how out of place they look and feel. Not my idea of fun.
It does look creepy through modern eyes, and uncomfortable even if you take away your modern ideas of what’s appropriate. I’m just saying that the people calling the guy a paedophile and saying they’d castrate him are taking things out of context.
It’s kind of like how Lewis Carroll’s family edited his collected letters and photographs so that just the ‘innocent’ ones involving little girls were shown, which subsequently led to him being labeled a paedophile in our era.
Berber and Julia while it is perfectly normal and healthy to have physical contact there are sick people out there and if they are willing to go that far {kiss on the mouth….even closed} then what might they do if alone with a child! I have wanted my children to grow up knowing that physical contact is good and healthy but there are boundaries and have gone through that with them AND when or if they have any doubt that the line is being crossed they should go with their gut feeling…..IF THEY FEEL UNCOMFORTABALE THEN LEAVE and find me or an other trusted adult. Now those girls looked like they felt VERY uncomfortable and I think even one of them kept looking over to her mother for help or guidance….and when mom did nothing THAT upset me. So I think the reason that this video was disgusting is that these little girls look uncomfortable only when he pushes the boundaries and watching their discomfort is awful and brings out that feeling of wanting to hurt HIM that’s all……. :}
Lila, as I said above, I agree that the guy is a prick who is making those kids feel uncomfortable, I just think that he’s doing it for laughs and not to get off on it. Doesn’t make it okay, he’s still a prick, I just disagree with the people saying they’re sure he’d rape those kids if he had the chance.
Kissing on the mouth isn’t wrong per se (I kissed my parents on the mouth when I was a kid, and my cousins’ kids kiss family on the mouth too), but it’s definitely not something that a stranger should do. I’m not saying that he had the right to do that, all I’m saying is it’s probably a stupid and dated joke rather than a real seduction attempt.
Berber, I understand no real problem with both points it was just hard to watch…but I went back and looked at the clip after reading most of the posts and now I wonder if our host has just maybe edited the clip to be questionable and see what happens…people… me included have given insightful feedback on how we see and react to this topic….even the title well chosen to get the ball rolling….lol…if we saw the whole show we might all have different feelings and same goes with the cartoon….very interesting indeed…..lol… :}
I agree with Berber, to say that open affection is a sign of pedophilia then pedophiles would be very easy to track down. As far as I understand pedophiles don’t have to be flamboyantly affectionate to be pedophiles, most hide their behaviour because they understand the punishment that results from its exposure.
Emily open affection is NOT a sign of pedophilia very true. Open affection is healthy and normal. Social and personal boundaries for normal displays of affection should and for the most part are sent at home. But what ever you have learned as normal may not be the same as others and both can be OK…. it is when someone steps over the other persons comfort level that it becomes a problem. Those little girls looked uncomfortable. The clip I think was set to get us to think it was a pervert….see clip again…at the end in red writing pervert was slapped across the clip…lol…and we were asked to say which was more distasteful to us…so the pervert label was on the video its self not made up by those watching the clip. I admit I might be a little over sensitive to the topic as my younger son was grabbed by a guy and tried to kidnap him right out of our front yard! Thank goodness his older brother was with him {I didn’t let them play by themselves outside} Poor kid turned into a tug-a-war ….brother holding on to one arm yelling for help {loudly too just like I taught them!} and the “pervert” pulling on his other arm….he ran when I came to the door with phone in hand……and we did catch the guy and he pleaded guilty….he was a medical school student here on a student visa….he was deported and was to be banned from school…..with perverts they will always reoffend no matter what the consequences might be….look at all that just got out of prison and reoffend within days of release. There really isn’t a cure or effective treatment for them and they come in all shapes and sizes, races and socioeconomic backgrounds….. but the one thing they have in common is they will reoffend. Now some people do go over board and think any outward signs of affection are wrong and some are too eager to say that what was once OK for a parent is now a sexual abuse and that too is wrong and it shouldn’t be that way. If this wasn’t a problem maybe families wouldn’t be breaking down like they are…who knows….
I’m fully with you on this, Berber: we are judging edited pieces of the past, taken them out of their context, with the eyes of the present. Again, maybe that’s what is pretended (after all, what is asked is what is the most distasteful to us, and not, what we understand of the pieces portrayed).
I’ll never confess my age after this to not invite any joke about it, but I never kissed anyone in the lips. So, to me, that’s an act with the value of an atomic bomb or the strongest cuss word, to never be used unless when it’ll matters most. Saying that, I know of normal families where father and son kisses in the lips and that was considered a simple normal sign of family affection. I never heard they were dysfunctional in any way. I’m more prude than the majority and irony of the ironies, I could have probably classified some behaviors of ones who yell here “pervert”, as pervert too, without loosing my coherence and had I knew them. Instead, I’m constantly asking myself if what I see are “normal” or belong to some or other “normal” order, independently of what I first fell about it.
That happened strongly in the TV Show’s piece, for instance. I don’t like it. It’s obnoxious. I didn’t need to judge the TV host character to get to that impression… it’s a TV show who played on the embarrassment of children who knew that eventually they will grow up and and will eventually have to do adult things, whatever they are; or maybe is a TV host who thinks he is being funny or good for the children without knowing we went too far and fall in distaste; or maybe, is simply my empathy with the children subjected to imposition of affections (and who ever read Quino, and saw how Mafalda visualized as “hippopotamus”, “the” old “aunts” intent to impose their kisses on her, will understand what I mean). But at the same time I disliked it, I was asking myself if that was normal or acceptable when it was filmed, where it was filmed.
To the ones who jumped with the “kill him”, do you know the show lasted five years and made almost six hundred episodes? Combining what I read here with what I found in the Wikipedia (if it was indeed “Just Like Mom”), I suspect that the TV host presented in the clip lasted 4 years presenting the program. Unless we are seeing the reasons why it was canceled, we might also think what that makes from the audiences, to support a TV Host we easily judged pedophile in direct.
So, maybe before we judge an whole nation as pedophile (or at least a big chunk of it), we might consider the hypothesis that the video was mixed and edited to enhance a certain impression. We know it was edited (we only need to watch it to know that). The cartoon was “edited” too: there is missing cartoons, like the one where “the boys are heroes” (boy defeating a Dragon) or “The girls are heroines” (girl saves caravans from Indians!). With the missing pictures, what transpires is a manual of co-existence in the play-field, for children already into the game of gender playing but insecure of what the “other” side can do (who ever played with a three year’s old niece who insist we are the “mother”, and she is the family’s “dog”, knows those manuals are needed… I’m a “boy” in case you don’t know). Or maybe is other thing. It is ambiguous. Darren was considered an accomplished satirist, and maybe that’s what it is, a satire, but again, he also illustrated books for children.
What is not ambiguous is the chosen cartoons and the killer description, “from a 1970’s children book”. Both then, appear to have be edited to enhance a certain effect, and both appear to share a common point, both are about gender role. Was that the original intention, to probe us about the ways how the gender separation was conveyed to kids twenty to thirty years ago? When we devalue the importance of that idea in those pieces, the cartoons became simply silly, and the TV Show became pornographic…
Just to conclude, I strongly dislike the first one, I like the second (in an artful way at least).
PS.: In explaining my opinion, I resorted to information got from commentators here like @Todio, @Rob J, and others… just to give the credit to whom deserves, my thanks!
Lila, I didn’t refresh my browser and didn’t saw your last comment before putting mine. I’m sorry for your experience (and your children experience too). I’m curious about the way you ordered your phrase: the guy was “normal” before he tried the grab? It gives the impression that he was first deported and only then was banned from school… or was he already marked to be banned from it before the event? I find very weird that someone who has given an opportunity to study in the “exterior”, throw it in the waste that way. What I was expecting was someone in that situation of being too much afraid of breaking any law, to do anything (But I cannot be sure about this, since I know one of your last shootings involved one over-sea student too).
I’ll not insist on this point because I don’t know how much you already won your understandable rage, but when you wrote “but the one thing they have in common is they will reoffend.”, couldn’t it be you have that impression because those who don’t offend again, are not news?
Joao Pedro, I’m sorry I don’t see where I posted above yours that I said “the guy was normal” He was a medical student….now you can’t tell just by the way someone looks if they are a sex offender….yes maybe some…lol…but not all. This guy we found out had been kicked out of medical school in one state but had a distant relative in that city that got him out of trouble and got him transferred to our city and into our medical college….this time I went to court and made sure charges were not dropped and when he found me and both children with me and he knew he would do time he wanted to deal…..and since I was then working in Psychiatry {inpatient hospital} and Chemical Dependency Unit I know he would just continue to offend once out…I agreed to let him be deported and banned….at least he wouldn’t hurt anyone near me. Now please note I do not feel rage over this and I didn’t mean for it to sound that way. The last 12 years before I got too sick to work I was in the medical field of Mental Health in patient. So when I say that sex offenders always re-offend it is based on textbook medical facts. Here in the states we have news reports way too many every month….right now I have 124 registered sex offender within 2 miles of my home….don’t know about the ones that haven’t been caught or not registered as they should be… but the system is over burdened and just can’t keep track…we can go on-line and check the list for our area. Their need is so strong and most have even said if out they will offend again. The problem with sex offenders ….they are people too each with their own personalities and that plays a role too as to how fearful or arrogant and every thing in between…. boy Richard really is getting a book full of info…lol….
Lila, I heard that people get registered as ‘sex offenders’ in the States for stupid things like peeing in a public area or being spotted while walking around in the nude inside their own home or garden. Isn’t that true? If it is, then that makes such a registry a bit worthless imho… it’s not like someone who can’t control their bladder is automatically a rapist😉
Lila, the “normal” part was my attempt to understand if that student had already a story or was that its first offence. I think it too extreme to be a first offence, even more if we consider he is studying in a strange land (I suppose). Does he harbour death wishes or what? Of course, if he had done other things in the past and wasn’t caught, or maybe he was caught and was facing possible consequences leading him to an attitude like, “I don’t care, let me do the worst”, that’s another story. Or perhaps he was someone native to the land, only formally foreigner but feeling at home at it. I remember a case of deportation some years ago of young delinquents to Azores. The boys grew up all their life in the USA or Canada (I don’t remember which) and didn’t even speak the Portuguese language, but being second generation immigrants, they were easy to discard that way.
My reference to your “rage” was my pre-emptive strike to respect your feelings. It is refreshing to see you are talking from a position of knowledge, even if you are contradicting my past believes. I don’t believe many in your position would do, even because the news environment are usually too full of demagogy to help there. I truly believed that people can won over past deeds and correct themselves. I still do, but now I’ll have to take in consideration your opinion and what you are telling me, too. Thanks!
Berber, not true…lol….we are not the proud uptight like some would think…..you can’t believe every thing you hear. I am sure that there are some who may not belong on such a list but isn’t common just as I’m sure there are innocent people in jail and I don’t speak for just the US. I think we have far more freedom and personal rights then many areas. I think our over all legal system gives a better chance of fairness also….so much so that even guilty people get off because their rights were violated at some point…sad but true.
Joao Pedro, the guy had been a problem at home and that was why his family pushed him to seek school out of his home country and this was his second medical school in the US his “uncle” who was a legal resident in the US got him out of that trouble and got him into our medical school….and what would a man in his 20’s think he was doing grabbing a 4 year old child out of his front yard in the middle of the day? I don’t think he wanted to take him home for milk and cookies. Yes he had a history of abusing little boys. It’s good to look for the good in others don’t ever lose that quality but know there are those in this world who are not good and you can’t always tell by just looking. But with those that are pedophiles and other similar sexual deviant behaviors….these are mental illnesses and not just something they try harder and not offend again….. it is a real illness and there isn’t a cure at this time there are treatments but none give the person the ability to not offend again if they have the opportunity to have access to some one. Oh and deporting people that have grown up here and never been to the country of their parents is wrong and each case should be evaluated and some common sense used….and that doesn’t always happen and that is where we as citizens must speak up to our elected officials…..and I think the Friday Puzzle may be up now! It’s nice to be able to share beliefs and cultures and it not get ugly…lol…..
Lila, I found one of the articles that I read those things in. It is from 3 years ago, but I don’t know if things have changed drastically since then. HRW is a fairly reputable organisation as far as I know.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/09/11/us-sex-offender-laws-may-do-more-harm-good
@Lila, after reading your story, now I’m wondering if the cases of deportation I told about was not also defender’s lawyer trickery to reduce their penal time. That was not how the story was presented here, and the fact they came in a batch is more coherent with a punctual political act, but I cannot discard the possibility that they work for it to escape prison time (the batch thing suggests they were rounded from the prisons, because surely they didn’t suffer trial at the same time, or ended their time at the same time… or did they?).
@Berber, thanks for the link. You have been introducing us to the exaggeration around this topic and the link supports well your idea. What I find intriguing, is that it can simultaneously credit and discredit Lilabyrd argument. I’ll explain: the link reported that only 1/4 of adult offenders reoffend, and that is a direct denial of the argument “sex offenders always re-offend” based on “textbook medical facts”. However, the two statements don’t need to be in contradiction. If the universe of adult offenders defined in the link is too broad, including the “sick perverts” of the medical textbooks but also much more, then it would be natural without denying the later, that many of them will not relapse. In other words, the law system is exaggerating, producing too many false positives… which is the point of the link and I think, yours too, Berber.
This leave me with the problem of the hardcore perverts. Are they really incurable or is that only an opinion of outdated text-books (the destiny of all the textbooks)? What they “have” is a disease or that’s what they are? The self-awareness of the “condition” as a disease doesn’t turn the things worst, offering them an excuse to shirk their responsibilities?
I’m particularly interested to know the evolution of views of the “condition” as disease: if it appeared first as a problem to be solved, or as a solution in search of its problem (meaning, if it was seen as disease in the moment we started to have medical ideas how to combat it… this because it came to my attention, the pressures of the pharmaceutical industries to classify certain undesirable behaviors as diseases when they find drugs able to change them).
PS. Lila, when you said “boy Richard really is getting a book full of info…lol…”, remember, he is a professional psychologist researcher too. He is probably laughing (in a good way) with all these (in my case) layman exchanges. 🙂
Berber & Joao Pedro, Sex offender/Pedophile will re-offend if given the opportunity… no outdated info. HRW has a slant…our system isn’t perfect and needs work, but there isn’t any other that I know of any better. The DSM-IV has pedophilia diagnostic criteria as 302.2 has full guidelines for diagnosis and this has been around and not made up by pharmaceutical companies. The DSM-IV is “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” published by the American Psychiatric Association and is the standard use to diagnose mental disorders. Being diagnosed with a mental illness doesn’t relive a person of their responsibility no more than a person diagnosed with say Diabetes….they have a recommended treatment plan {no cure there either} and it is up to that person along with trained professionals in that field to do everything they can do to treat the illness….there may not be a cure for this mental illness but there is treatment that can help but if given the opportunity to have access to a child they will re-offend…now I am talking about pedophiles “hard core”…..not “peeping toms” or “voyeurs” and so on…but even those will tell you they have a very strong desire to repeat their perversions. I know Richard is a professional and I had worked in the medical field for 23 years covered the full spectrum so to speak…lol…from OB/GYN to home hospice and the last 12 years in mental health and chemical dependency…granted I’m not as sharp as I was before getting some “dain bramage” as I call it…trouble focusing and memory….so this is getting the better of me…lol…I get a little frustrated with myself sometimes as I try to pull on my past experience and have to go hunt for the info that at one time not long ago was right in my head….there are so many cases that I know of but can’t remember all the case names and dated and in too much pain to go looking….lol….oh yeah and my comment about the “book full.”..lol…was just a poke at past Friday Puzzles and some “conspiracy theory” that we were his test subjects…just fun….
@lilabyrd: That’s awful to hear lilabyrd, I do hope you don’t ever have to go through such an experience again.
With the re-offending statement, I worry about taking the DSM and statistics at face value. There are certain aspects of that manual that seem to render the diagnosis of mental illness a box ticking exercise. It’s also subject to constant revision, the case of homosexuality and the DSM is a notable one.
Statistics are also a minefield. “Every pedophile will re-offend” is a big statement, realistically it can’t be true. Just one point you have to consider is defining the term pedophile. Is a mutually consensual relationship between an adult and a minor (say, above the age of 15) really sexual abuse? Is the adult involved a pedophile? If a minor lies about their age to have sex with a consenting adult, does that make the adult a pedophile and the sexual act rape?
By saying that “every pedophile will re-offend” you’re more than likely referring to a very specific group of individuals and even so you have no means to argue that even these individuals will re-offend. There are no rules for sexually deviant behaviour pertaining to pedophiles. And statistics cannot be extrapolated to make generalisations.
Emily, I think in my conversation with myself…lol….you know the type that takes place in your head while posting….no don’t go there please….lol…I’m thinking and talking about our “hard core” as this has progressed not even talking about the guy in the video as going to the extreme ….. who knows what editing might have taken place really…the video slapped “pervert” in red across the screen at the end….other than that who knows about him……so I’ll agree to a point with you that in this world there are indeed no certainties but the risk is so great that I wouldn’t ever put my child or some other child within eye shot of a pedophile {would you?} and that is not talking about the examples you listed…..those I would have to say are not within the group I was thinking about as being pedophiles. The medical understanding in the area of mental health as with other fields of medicine are always evolving and as we say certain illnesses have no cure that doesn’t exclude the hope for the future. The DSM is a work in progress and as we make advancement it too is updated and no one should ever not consider all possible avenues but the treatment and long term out come for these offender are not good …they like even an alcoholic are just one slip away from re-offending….. if you have ever talked face to face with pedophiles that have been through the system and treatment programs they will tell you as much and if they don’t then they are on the way to re-offending. So OK 99.9 % ……..lol…….really this isn’t a generalisation either no more so than any other given in treatment and out-comes of both medical and mental illnesses ….those stats are given and documented based on the current and past patients diagnosed and treated outcomes….one doest count who might become ill with a certain illness in the future as being a variable in such statistics… only the past and present may be considered. I do understand that there are differences in how such issues are considered and treated throughout the world….or viewed by culture and social groups…for me with this issue the child’s safety will always come first. It’s so hard to know what the tone of a post is when you can’t see face and body language….please know that this post is just a pleasant discussion…. my doctor keeps tell me to try and give my dain bramage head a work out some time…lol….and I already put in some time on a critter tales on my blog…and once again I’m loosing my focus….oh well…..maybe I’ll find it later!
I don’t think I can choose. At the end of the day they both come from the same sexist assumptions about girls and boys so they are both equal symptoms of a wider problem, right?
(Have to admit, though, while both of them had me raising my eyebrows in shock and caused that ‘can’t believe I’m seeing this’-feeling, only the first one conjured an ‘EWWWWWW’ from me.)
The first one is so so creepy, I wouldn’t want that guy near me let alone my daughter!!
I couldn’t even watch the first one until the end. There’s a big difference between sleazy distastefulness, and outdated distasteful clichés.
Although feminism still has a long way to go, of course.
Yep. We’ll truly be equal when my wife carries the heavy shopping and I don’t end up buying the drinks 75% of the time😉
what a load of rubbish. women stopped striving for equality long ago and now are wanting to be the top dog. we get special treatment all the time and still complain.
in the army there is a department which is SUPPOSED to be the elite of the elite, the most amazing super force going and still the netry levels into it for men and women are different, therefore there are men failing to get in when a women at a lower level succeeds, thats not the best of the best, thats the best of the women and the best of the men, even though there ARE men doing better than some of the women aloud in.
its ridiculous.
I find both distasteful. The video I found positively stomach churning – I can’t understand why the producers didn’t step in and stop it. The guy made my skin crawl.
The cartoon annoys me. I don’t think it’s a parody as some have said. This was the philosophy I was raised with and it caused me a lot of harm. My parents actually told me that since I was only a girl I didn’t need an education, it was my job to be a housewife and raise kids. My brother was sent to grammar school, but despite being offered a place at a good grammar school, I was sent to the local secondary school, because I could walk there and my parents didn’t have to pay the bus fare.
This changed the course of my life and it has been a long hard slog to get to where I am now. I am 52 and next Thursday I graduate with an MScIT at Liverpool University. – How I wish I could have had opportunities much earlier in life. Better late than never though.
Sue good for you! We were raised in the same generation. I was taught pretty much the same thing but mostly through our Church. I did make it to college but the impact on my life was still there. We can change stereotypes and make our lives better. If no one has told you yet then let me say Congratulation!
Hmmm… interesting choice.
The first one, definitely. Though the second one is more blatantly sexist and used for educational purposes, the first one is wrong for even more reasons.
These reasons are:
1) the man is actually endorsing a very similar stereotype of women that the poster is propagating: one of women being ‘passive’ and basically an willing subject to a guy’s attentions. He endorses this through his words and his actions by trying to blackmail a girl into kissing him. This is the kind of stuff date rape is made of.
2) kissing on the lips is a very intimate act. If the kisses were on the cheek, I would consider that to be somewhat harmless, but the fact that he basically a) demands it from an impressionable child and b) kisses them on the lips, makes this whole thing downright disgusting. His further comments just add to the idea that this guy is actually getting off at this.
In effect, his behaviour embodied the stereotype propagated in the poster and added objectification of women to that, only to finish the shit sandwich off with a fine layer of paedophilia on top of that. It is impressive to see so much being so disturbingly wrong in one single scene.
Yes, this, exactly.
This is by far the best response and I agree wholeheartedly.
A quick googling uncovered that the cartoon is from a book valled “I’m glad I’m a boy, I’m glad I’m a girl” and was by a New Yorker cartoonist and satirist, Whitney Darrow Jr ( http://www.nytimes.com/1999/08/12/arts/whitney-darrow-jr-89-gentle-satirist-of-modern-life-dies.html )
So the cartoon WAS written in the 70s, but was a satire. Although reviewers apparently took it seriously.
The first one gives me the creeps. The seccond one seems to be a persiflage but you have to put it in that time.
Oh, and here’s a full copy of the book: http://michiedo.blogspot.com/2008/12/im-glad-im-boy-im-glad-im-girl.html
The first one…it’s just so….slimy!
The second one isn’t right but it’s so much more innocent.
I dont have a problem with either.
Just the first one, which is creepy as hell.
As was pointed out earlier, the second is from a book by Whitney Darrow Jr, who was a cartoonist and satirist.
I’m glad someone recognized satire in the second picture… I thought being the 70s, the cartoons must be in a joke.
First video creeps the hell out of me. But it tells something about how moral standards change in fields you wouldn’t expect.
I honestly thought people on this blog were a little more intelligent. So the guy enjoying kissing kids on the lips automatically implies he’s massively turned on by it? So it was just fine back then but now it’s not because “attitudes have changed”? Perhaps you know, he just loves kids in a non-sexual way and wants to give them a little kiss on their lips rather than their cheek? The worst you can say is that it isn’t hygienic.
Is this a joke? It may be a stretch to assume that he’s a paedophile, but certainly he’s doing a lot more than being unhygenic. He seems to be completely incapable of picking up on social cues; it’s never acceptable to force other people to kiss you, and the fact that he’s an authority figure doing it to young girls in a situation where they can’t really say no makes it revolting.
Anybody remember Richard Dawson on Family Feud? What is it with game show hosts basically molesting female contestants? Eww. That said, the graphic disturbs me more. It’s a mind-set that we can’t seem to get past. (Regardless of satire or not, that graphic accurately depicts the 70s.) My mom wouldn’t buy me the toys marketed to girls, because she didn’t want me to be limited. I got dump trucks and Doctor play-sets and musical instruments, and Star Wars action figures. The toys marketed to girls were teacher, nurse, cooking and cleaning toys, as well as dolls. I had to beg for a baby doll and Barbies. (Of course, I never wanted Ken, my Barbies hung out with Han Solo and Chewie.) Every day, we are still fighting the same tired gender tropes. Women are not considered to have full agency over their appearance, desires, and sexuality. So, while Creepy Guy is Creepy, the most disturbing is the idea that careers are gendered. (If you don’t believe me, call an airline and ask how many female pilots work for them. There was recently a plane that was saved from crashing, because the stewardess, (erm, “Flight Attendant,” was actually a fully-qualified pilot and had been for 20 years.)
That’s not just the 70’s. Last year, I was wandering around the toy department in a big department store, and I noticed aisles saying ‘Girl’ and ‘Boy’. The ‘Girl’ aisle held mini vacuum cleaners, mini kitchens, mini beauty salons, make-up, mini ironing boards etcetera. The ‘Boy’ aisle held science sets, spy kits, adventure toys, that sort of thing. My friends didn’t understand why I got so angry…
I’m glad that my parents got me whatever toys I wanted (in moderation, of course). I had meccano, an ironing board, cars, legos, barbies, ponies and dress-up clothes for both genders. When I was a little kid, I wanted to grow up to be a man like Daddy, but I also loved my frilly dresses. My parents never told me to conform to one gender role, they just let me figure out who I wanted to be on my own.
And while I love girly things like make-up and dresses and handbags now, I also love science and action films and sci-fi and things that some people consider masculine.
I think we should just remove the freaking labels and let people choose for themselves.
You do have a point there. I work in the toy industry and I find the trade literature absolutely revolting. It’s as if time’s not just stood still but actually gone into reverse gear!
Luckily, my parents never bought anything TV-advertised, so I was spared Barbie and the like myself.
I second the Richard Dawson connection/reminder. That behavior always struck me as odd, so seeing this guy going after 11 year olds the same way was really, really unwatchable.
The second, though, is no more offensive to me than when a comedian starts doing a bit like “black people are like this, but white people are like this!” It may be a cliched an less than funny presentation, but not really offensive if you’re not taking it seriously.
To me, it boils down to: the second one is *saying* something I might not like, but the first one is *doing* something I might not like. Freedom of speech gets the drawings a *huge* pass in my mind.
I would have run into the same problems as a child but didn’t because I was the youngest of three and had both an older sister and brother….so my hand me downs were from both….I loved dolls and cars. As I made friends through life everyone was so surprised by my activities…I look very female with frills AND did the back packing, camping and fishing…yes catch, clean and cook what I would catch {if eatable, if not catch and release}.. my kids got the type of toys they liked….older son wanted a kitchen set with plastic food and all… it seemed at his day care they had a whole room set up like a home and neighborhood….store with checkout too… it was very hard to find a kitchen set that wasn’t pink…boy the nasty things people said to me when I was trying to find that kitchen set wow….he loved to cook in that kitchen and I let him know you clean up what you mess up too…lol…my soon to be daughter-in-law thanks me all the time! …so I feel we can and do change those old stereotypes every day….BUT a pervert can not be fixed nor changed and will offend over and over again mostly with those that are too small to protect themselves!
The first one is horrific. But the second one is worse because:
The first one is one guy who can be dealt with. The second one is purvasive ideology that “seems” harmless but in fact insidiously adds to the belief that boys are rulers and masters and girls are helpless — which encourages girls to allow themselves to be taken advantage of by perverts and feel like it’s their own fault or lot in life, to be quiet and just accept whatever boys do to them.
We laugh at the cartoon, but this message still exists everywhere we look. And ask any social worker and post-molestation and rape therapist, and they’ll tell you the effects of it still exist.
Yes, I completely agree with this.
It is the ideology (men-active, women-passive) perpetuated by the “cartoon” that is evident in the first video (which IS horrific, no denying that), and that underpins society – EVEN NOW. It is not outdated, and I find it very surprising that a lot of people here feel that it’s easy to laugh at how silly we “were”.
I couldn’t even finish the video. I got about halfway through and I just had to stop it.
The graphic simply represents the inequality of the time in which it was created. The video is one man behaving like a predator, one man that possibly ruined many lives–both those he may have directly harmed and those that were harmed by the victims he may have left behind.
Yup. Exactly my thoughts (only more eloquently expressed!).
What I am also finding shockingly distasteful is how many people seem to think that, as one commenter wrote, “the most disturbing is the idea that careers are gendered.” It boggles my mind that past inequality among genders in the workforce could ever be worse than innocent children being violated, raped, and left to live as damaged humans in pain (who, we know now, often continue the exponentially increasing cycle of abuse, either by becoming abusers or bringing an abuser into the home when they’ve had children).
I don’t know if that man ever abused children, but that video represents abuse and pedophilia just as that graphic represents prejudice and gender inequality. It’s like saying a copy of “The Rules” is more distasteful than a video of child porn; I just can’t fathom thinking that way.
I’m a little torn on this one, as the second one is pretty far reaching in it’s subversion. The first one just shows a single disturbed guy, who’s greatest crime might have been stealing a few kisses from young girls. But that’s my logical answer. Emotionally, the first one, hands down. I couldn’t even finish watching the video.
Sure, the game show guy is creepy, but is he much creepier than, say, Bob Eubanks or Chuck Woolery? I think not.
I thought the cartoons were bad (I remember those days well), but the PEDOPHILE on the game show should have been sent to jail. Sexist attitudes can be changed, but Uncle Creepy is downright dangerous.
In the “Girls can cook” image, the girl looks like she is supposed to be grilling. I thought that was man territory! Hands off girl.
Ha ha ha you’re right! Some of the best chefs in the world are men. I think the discovery of fire way back when gave men an added advantage when it came to innate knowledge of heat transfer through pieces of meat.
The video is from the old Canadian game show “Just Like Mom”
and intolerably creepy
The host was possibly the worst host in the history of Canadian television. In addition to the clips shown he was always very uncomfortable around the kids. He was always making inappropriate comments leading to pregnant pauses when the kids had no idea how to deal with what he just said. Frequently the female host would seem to be completely exasperated with him.
The show had three rounds. In the first two, the Mom and child teams (and sometimes there were boys but the female host never tried to get a kiss out of them… hmmmm…) were separated and asked to tell what the other would say in a certain situation (example, “what would your Mom say is your Dad’s worst habit?” or “What would your daughter do if a boy put a frog in her hand?” stuff like that) The third round was a cook-off where the kids had to make some food item (usually cookies or cakes etc) using (of course) the sponsor’s products (this show was on the forefront of product placement, there were logos everywhere, Robin Hood Flour figuring prominently). The kids usually dumped products into the bowl randomly as they had no recipe to follow and only seconds to get the ingredients. (I recall one kid dumping about a cup of salt and three eggs, shells and all into the bowl!)
The Mom’s had to sample the ‘results’ and guess which one was made by their kid. The winners got to spin a wheel to see what prize they got.
A remake of this show is actually in the works right now (NOT the same host, thank God)
I only got about 30 seconds into the video before I had to stop watching as it was a massive trigger for me and made me feel physically sick.
Personal issues aside though, this appears to be a game show aimed at young children which portrays it as normal, acceptable and cute to be forced to do something you don’t want by a figure authority in public, and (judging by some of the comments as I didn’t watch that far) additionally sends the message that other figures of authority will not step in to help you. It’s an incredibly damaging message to be givng young children.
I find the kiss happy host more distasteful than the kid book. Maybe because it involves physical contact as opposed to outdated ideas.
At time mark 0:48 there’s a shot of a board with 5 categories, number 3 of which is “Hugs & kisses”. Maybe the host is just doing that round. It’s impossible to tell from such a heavily edited series of clips.
I don’t (necessarily) agree that he’s a perv, he’s probably an example of the times. This doesn’t necessarily make it right, but kids can’t be sheltered forever, and at least you know nothing worse is going to happen on live TV.
In response to Arno, my 9-year-old niece gives kisses on the lips, to family at least.
I did find the guy creepy, but I agree with Simon to some extent, he’s not *necessarily* a pervert, just a creep.
I met plenty of “dirty old men” in my younger days and would not consider it child abuse. Don’t overreact.
That’s what I was trying to say, but you’re phrasing it much better😉
Anonymous said “The game show is actually Canadian not American”
And what continent is Canada on? Sheesh!
Hey – it happened in our world – we’re all responsible for allowing it.
I couldn’t watch all of the first one. I just kept thinking -doesn’t someone try to stop him? It’s terrible, and he should go to prison and kiss people there.
The second one is very bad considering it was intended for children. In a modern, adult context it’s funny. I almost want to post it to my facebook wall. However, I wouldn’t read it to my four-year-old for his bedtime story. He’s already been warned that gender roles are invented by control freaks.
People from South and Central America, as well as Canadians, would probably take exception to your grouping all of them together as “Americans” simply because they reside on a continent that has America in the name. Canada, obviously, is in North America. Americans are citizens of the United States. You wouldn’t say the show is “United Statesian”. That’s a rather bizarre thing to get up in arms over. And I’m American (i.e. from the United States).
I, too, couldn’t finish watching the video. It was just too creepy. I find it more distasteful mainly because all the authority figures (host *and* parents) are conspiring to put the children in a situation that the children found uncomfortable and was just too sexualized for young girls.
The illustration, on the other hand, well, if you’re intelligent and able to think “outside the box” cartoons like this don’t really have that much impact. It’s only a threat to the extent people give it power to shape their views. As others point out, we still live in a world where gender bias exists but each individual decides how much to perpetuate these biases.
The illustration has a component of free will, take or leave what you read, whereas the video shows children being forced by adults to endure something that is, at best, inappropriate, and at worst, sexualized and prurient. Yuck.
Okay, actually I had a very similar argument with a gentleman only a couple of days ago who thought that since Canada and America were on the same continent we were all Americans. We are all North American, but I am Canadian, and I’m truly sorry if that sounds like a beer commercial. I think only Canadians might get that reference…
The game show is much more distasteful to me. I feel like I’m watching the victimization occur. The second one I can laugh off as outdated and naive.
First one is creepy, second one – just plain stupid.
#2 looks like a mild satire on old fashioned attitudes.
#1 just looks very creepy.
Sorry, got them the wrong way around there. The cartoon looks like a lighthearted satire, the gameshow doesn’t.
The video is creepy but, I think perversion is in the eye of the beholder. After all, we don’t know the context which led to the show being what it was. At the time of broadcast, it’s gimmick may have been viewed as good fun. Times have changed and opinions along with them, the 1990’s turned the proverbial “dirty old man” in to public enemy number one, but prior to that, childhood innocence and a non-sexualised view of children was pretty much the norm. I wonder if in our galloping panic over child protection we haven’t lost something of what we were trying to protect.
The comic strip is good fun and I suspect tongue in cheek, but again time has been cruel to books, and articles representative of the time in which they were written. Anti-semitism in The Thirty Nine Steps, racism and eugenics in Tarzan Of The Apes, and amusing gender stereotypes in The Famous Five. Even in the work of some of our heroes, Spike Milligan’s war memoirs for instance, racism rears it’s head.
I think it is best to accept the views expressed in books as historical testament to people’s views at the time and to enjoy them for what they are. Though reading Tarzan and being amused by it’s lauding of the upper classes, the British Empire, breeding and it’s disgraceful descriptions of Native Africans, is perhaps very much easier when you are white?
I was uncomfortable reading it, just as I was reading Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels, but reading Treasure Island didn’t make me a pirate, and reading unpleasant and irrational views won’t make me a bigot.
So I suspect, neither of them is distasteful in their own terms, only to us seeing them through different eyes.
Specifically with regard to the video, don’t you find the caption really bloody annoying, as if without slapping “perv” on it, we might not have noticed it’s implied message. That was the bit that annoyed me most.
“…a non-sexualised view of children was pretty much the norm. I wonder if in our galloping panic over child protection we haven’t lost something of what we were trying to protect.”
Well said.
The first as it is incredibly disturbing and bordelining Paedophilia and pretty much justifying this kind of behaviour to be aired nationally.
The second on the other hand, is only a cartoon published designed to influence. Whilst not ideal, I don’t think it is anywhere near as harmful as the former.
The first one is so much worse, in my opinion there is an underlying feel of obligation put onto the kids which makes it that bad. The second seems comparably harmless. That guy is a serious creep!
First one.
That guy must be arrested!
So that’s where Morris got the idea!
It’s horrifying how abusers go straight for the people they can tell are good victims. That’s why people who were molested as children tend to experience more traumas later in life.
Is “neither” the correct answer?
I haven’t seen the entire game show host thing because when Richard Wiseman first posted it to Twitter, I clicked on it, watched a few seconds, gagged, and couldn’t close the browser fast enough
Mr.Wiseman, please never do this to us again! Distasteful is hardly the word to describe the first item. It is profoundly disturbing. I had to imagine my own child in such a situation, and I couldn’t bear it – it almost made me weep with disgust and fear. The second one makes me thankful that our society has progressed since then, it makes me angry, but it doesn’t leave a bad taste in my mouth. But maybe that’s only because I haven’t had to suffer these kind of attitudes very much, so it doesn’t really resonate with me. By contrast, the first one plays much more into our contemporary attention to sexual child abuse. So maybe, on average, the younger readers find the first one more disgusting and the older readers the second one?
Exactly,
I am a child of the 80’s, raised to be whatever I want, so I don’t find the book offensive at all. Actually, I find it charming.
I know lots of female doctors, male flight attendants, etc, and the whole “women cook, men earn money” is way outdated.
For me, for the most part, is more a play on words. If it said “boys are astronauts, girls are maids” it would be horrible, but I see no problem in something like “boys are butlers, girls are maids”.
It’s cute, it’s funny. And is a far too clever joke for the 70’s.
The video, on the other hand, deeply disturbing.
Butlers were a lot higher in rank than maids, though. Maybe if you go for ‘boys are stable boys, girls are maids’, you’d get a somewhat equal rank (achieved, of course, because the male version was usually younger). A housekeeper would’ve been the highest-ranked female servant in a Victorian household, but she still ranked below the butler.
Sexism isn’t cute or funny. Even today, men are often paid more for the same type of work, and treated differently. Even in the comments on this post, some people are arguing that women are born to take care of the housework and the kids. We may have been raised to be whatever we want, but we still have phone companies marketing gaming phones to males, and pink phones with an ovulation calendar to females. We still have toy companies putting kitchen sets and ironing boards in the ‘Girls’ aisle, and science toys in the ‘Boys’ aisle.
I know the cartoon is a joke, and I do appreciate it as such, but the preconceived notions it’s making fun of aren’t gone yet.
I’m pretty sure I saw that show as a kid, there is a timed baking section where they had all the ingredients and had to figure out how to put them together in under 2 minutes or something. And yeah, as someone else mentioned, it was a Canadian show.
Anyways, I didn’t find either one distasteful per se. the first one was just horrifying and the second one made me laugh. I thought the first one was WORSE than the second, but that’s not really what you asked…
#2 – because it “seems” more harmless, yet promotes sterotypes prevalent this day.
Both are terrible for different reasons, but the second is worse. The first is suposed to entretain, but the second is suposed to educate.
The gameshow host, because aaaargh.
There’s no sense trying to be objective about this.
[…] Which of these is the most distasteful? OK, two very different things today – your job is to say which is the most distasteful and why (both via […] […]
Both of them. But the second one seems to be worse because it teaches male chauvinists values to kids, and this values transcends to the video (and to the society), when the men ask about marriage and this stuffs, the girls (and mothers) are very passible about it.
Sorry about my english, I even wanted to write more, but I miss the correct words.
=]
The second one is actually remarkable accurate. Although it mysteriously leaves out the fact that both girls and boys do all of those things (except the first lady one; that’s debatable.)
Here’s my own example: “Girls use their hands to open jars.” “Boys use refrigerators to keep things cold.” See what I mean? No problem there.
How can you even compare. Second one is just shows the attitude in 1970.
The man should be BEHIND BARS in first one
The first one, of course. The second is a picture and there is no pressure. But the guy uses his power. Telling the kid: You win if you give me a kiss. And he doesn’t respect a “no”, tries to kiss the girl himself. That is awfull. And I am sorry that the parents did not protect them – because they wanted to win the show instead of punching the guy in his face!
The first one is more revolting… high ick factor… creepy, but the second one is more distasteful, sexist, damaging– it makes me angry.
I grew up in the 70’s and I remember grown men acting that way around little girls like it was all good fun; I think I felt like those girls did.
If, by distasteful, you mean a spontaneous, emotional reaction, it’s definitely the first one.
It could be that the second document had more consequences on the long term. The fact is, we can do nothing directly about it but changing our mind step by step, then hope it will induce the same behaviour to the other people.
There’s still lot of social injustice by now, but we don’t get pissed every minutes of the day. (But one could say there’s also thousands of children molested every day, so it’s not very consistent as an argument)
Instead, the creepy guy can be, sued, told to stop, beaten… Anything you like.
Well, I’ve just thought of an example : beetween the blueprints of a weapon causing massive damages (let’s say, a tank or atomic bomb) and a single corpse with visible wounds and mutilations. We will certainly be shocked by the corpse, not the inoffensive thing at first sight that will eventually cause innummerable deaths. …Unless we want to convince ourselves we are leaded by logic rather than emotion.
If you find my english clumsy, I’m not native so I try to make the best of it. Sorry.
The first one is the most distasteful to me. We watch as vulnerable, “captive” children, in the midst of an audience and even their mothers, are manipulated and intimidated by someone in power, into doing what they don’t want to do. It is the preying on vulnerability that is so difficult to watch. Similar to parents who abuse their children, or people who abuse animals, or many other situations. The recipients of the abuse have no way to escape, no safe haven.
The second group of images depict certain attitudes or expectations – but the influence is much more passive and easier to rebel against, were one to choose to do so.
Actually neither when viewed in their contemporary settings. People seem to look at things purely through modern day eyes and base their opinion om current day (western) morals.
Morals are constantly changing, back and forth. It’s not a linear thing in which old morals are inferior to modern day morals. It’s just a difference of perception of what is right and what is wrong.
The first one is hideouse, and even more so that NO ONE not even the parents steped in to protect the clearly unhappy children. The most anyone did was mutter under their breath. Whatever happened to standing up and saying no. Of everyone in the room which was mostly adults the 11 year olds showed the most spine, having the courage to (in some cases) say no to an invasive adult with a room of people staring at them. Also, at that age adults are viewed as authority figures, meaning it would take even more courage for a kid to say no.
It worries me so many people find the seccond funny. It isn’t. That was what people genualy used to believe. How many great scvientists, inventors, writers, never were due to the oppression of half the population for milenia. How much better would the world be if it wasn’t for that oppression.
The first one is definitely more distasteful.
Some people have said that the second one is worse because it is meant for education and will have a lasting impact on more people. But culture has a lasting impact on people, and the messages that culture sends are not examined in the same way that formal education is. What you see as acceptable behavior in the world around you shapes the way you behave. I’m sure the video was very “educational” in this way for all the people watching at home … not to mention the poor kids right there in person.
Definately the first one, made me sooo unconfortable watching that. The second seems more like a joke, which I’m assuming wasn’t. It is so baised to boys that you’d think people would see it for what it is
Ohh both are terrible but I find the first one the most distasteful, I think. It made me cringe! The second one is so bad that it’s funny.
The first one. That guy is such a creep. The second one is more like poking fun at stereotypes, or at least that’s how I saw it. The first one is just terrible. Pedophile!
Having grown up in the 70’s both seem pretty normal for their time (although I now know from reading comments that the 2nd one was satire, that wasn’t made clear in the OP).
What scares me most about the video is the over reaction it has inspired in some commenters, suggesting the host should be jailed (possibly even shot) for something that wasn’t massively (if at all) outside the social norms of the era. This seems to be related to why it is becoming almost impossible to recruit volunteers to work with children (boy scout leaders, football referees, etc.). I don’t see anything sexual in the host’s behaviour even if there is a crossing of boundaries. If that behaviour had been exhibited by a family member/close friend in the 70s it would have been seen as harmless affection. Given that he was a game show host that the parents of these children would have seen numerous times before they went on the show, it is clear that parents in that era, before the “Great Paedophile Scare”, would have seen it this way too.
If the second one had been produced as other than satire that would have been truly disturbing in the decade that gave us a female PM.
So you don’t think his questions about going on a date (immediately before trying to kiss the little girl) had a sexual implication? How many dates have you been on, involving a kiss, did not have any sexual connotation?! Anyone who condones the behavior in the context of the presentation should watch it again and ask themselves, “what if this *is* sexual?” Maybe it isn’t. If it is, it’s harmful, and that’s what we’re saying.
She is so young that it is just funny.
Like a pantomime character asking a child if it is married yet.
To be clear, it was just funny. View in today’s light, it comes across as creepy and the individual would have to know that, but you know, sometimes men just like kids without wanting to fuck them.
The Whitney Darrow book was a satire, as Bob said (I wish these comments were numbered). It’s from the 70s, the same period that gave us the record “Free To Be You and Me,” which included a similar bit with Mel Brooks and Marlo Thomas. You can see it Muppetized here — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUpLiJfV4_A
Both could be edited/presented without the whole facts.
Without seeing what the heading of the cartoon strip, and the context in which it was meant, ie: this is NOT how things should be. Who is to say that the dating and b&w element were not deliberate for this survey. Along with the video, it is only media hype that makes it deem wrong to kiss a young girl on the lips, when it wasn’t sociably acceptable. There are the same amount of peadophiles then as there are now, which is lower than you think.
I beleive neither peices are worse than the other and find both very innocent, for they are taken out of their time and context and placed under scrutiny of a year where both social acceptancies and moral guidances have been changed dramatically.
The book is odious, but the video is downright creepifying.
Aha! The second is satire and the first is bad editing.
I kiss my children – that seems okay to me, it’s not weird – the French kiss each other all the time – it’s just a bit odd that you all assume he is a paedophile – has the Daily Mail won?
Or maybe I should have said ‘Good editing’?
They’re not his children, and he’s not French. To the children he is a complete stranger and it’s quite obvious that they are uncomfortable with the situation. Therein lies the reason that it is so distasteful: these are children clearly uncomfortable with having a strange man kiss them, and he is pressuring them into doing something they don’t want to do, and in some cases simply doing it to them without their consent by evading their attempts to stop him. Yeah, that’s creepy anywhere. Also, I wonder if he ever kisses little boys on the show? If it’s just kissing children, or kissing as a general greeting a la the French, then he ought to be kissing boys just as much. No video on that, but I doubt he is.
I find it alarming that the idea of kissing a child is seen as proof that this man wants to sexually abuse them.
Really people, this is sick.
A Google search brings up next to nothing about this programme (the most I could find was this). Does anyone know any more about it? e.g. was it really seen as standard family fare at the time? was this part of the host’s weekly shtick or did he just overstep the mark a couple of times? Was it on national network TV or cable? And were there ever any complaints?
And how has no one mentioned Paul de Leeuw yet?
What’s the problem? Both seem fine to me? I don’t get it… am I meant to find something distasteful?
…I’m kidding by the way.
The first one is genuinely creepy. The second one is just outdated.
I suppose the second one is actually far more destructive and dangerous, but my visceral revulsion to the first one is far greater. In fact, if I were not old enough to remember when such things were seriously believed by many, I would think the second was parody.
You americans…are IDIOTS! If this used to be normal, how come it isn’t now? Show them your fat bodies, they would’ve considered it creepy, not the fact that they showed so much love for little kids.
“You americans…are IDIOTS! If this used to be normal, how come it isn’t now? Show them your fat bodies, they would’ve considered it creepy, not the fact that they showed so much love for little kids.”
I assume this is a “drive by” comment, but I will respond anyway, Anon. It also “used to be normal” to think nothing of owning other human beings as slaves, or to watch people being tortured and killed in an arena for entertainment. People living then would have considered our modern aversion to these things as “creepy”.
BTW I believe it is still not considered “normal” to call people you don’t know, but don’t agree with, Idiots, and to assume that all people with a certain national identity that you either dislike or are envious of, fat slobs. Likewise it is still considered “abnormal” to assume everyone who writes in English and disagrees with you is American.
I for one did not find it creepy or evil that the man in the clip was expressing love for the little girls. I found it creepy and evil that he was using his authority as an adult and an authority figure to get little girls to do something that they clearly did not feel comfortable doing, and furthermore after being refused went ahead and did it anyway.
i wonder how many PARENTS said the first one. im a mother and i definatley say the first.
the second is just the way life was and if parents choose to agree with these then there is nothing wrong with the jobs assosiated to each sex, but TELLING them this is what they shoud be can only incourage rebeelion and determination that we dont seem to have these days as there is no longer a fight for it.
id suspect the people saying the first one are parents and the people saying the second are people yet to have chldren-idealist. (at a guess intersting to know)
also im a 25year old stay at home mum/house wife and i hate this idea that im somehow forced into this role. im not i love my job, its what i believe a women should do when they have children, its not sexist. women are not inferior we are just better care givers. (in general-NOT ALWAYS)
Objectively the second is worse as it targets women globally, not just those unlucky enough to appear on this show. Experientially, though, the first is worse. I hated every second of sitting through it.
While I don’t like the idea of the game show host asking for a kiss it is not the kiss that is disgusting but the fact that he forces himself on the girls that is the problem. As a young girl in the 70’s I would have just dismissed the cartoon out of hand. It is passive, so while if it had been serious, it would have been a bad thing it is not as harmful as the host who is forceful and can not be ignored.
the first is more distasteul as it frankly is public paedophilia and parents have ubjected their children to this pervert and it is broadcasted on television, wheras i believe the second is simply good natured but old fashioned and wouldnt have been in anyway malicious, this is simply and old fashion ideal of male and female roles that has changed over time.
Far more disturbing to me is how many people can’t tell the difference between “creepy” and “child rape”.
Without a doubt, the first is excruciating to watch. So is a lot of dated TV where we witness attitudes that aren’t OK now like ‘cheeky’ sexual harrassment, or using racial nicknames. Back then people thought it was cute when a little girl “went all shy” which was easy to provoke by putting them in this kind of uncomfortable situation. In the 70s, many of us had uncles and aunties (not always blood-relatives, some were friends of parents) who were absolutely creepy as hell. And we were expected to kiss them on the lips or put up with being tickled by them, and everyone laughed as they watched us squirm. (Now I’m expecting someone to tell me I have a repressed abuse history because some people think all contact is sexual, and being tickled against one’s will is automatically molestation. I’m not saying it was OK, but it wasn’t sexual abuse.)
I *get* that paedophiles preying on vulnerable and innocent kids is about the most horrific thing most adults, especially parents, can imagine. But this is just a very creepy guy being very creepy, in a way that people thought was kind of OK back then, and getting reactions from little girls that were broadly thought to be cute and entertaining. (Can you imagine how differently this would have played out if one of the girls had said, loudly and confidently, “You’re making me uncomfortable, please stop”? But attitudes about how children should deal with adults, even creepy adults, was different then too.)
At the time, impossible though it may seem, most people laughed along, including most of our parents*.
I genuinely think this man is about as likely to be a sexual predator to children as someone who patted his secretary’s bottom in 1973 was likely to stalk her, rape her and murder her. (I’m not saying either is impossible, but also neither is a given.) Both are wrong. Both are VERY wrong by today’s standards. But back then they were an indicator of maybe being a bit overbearing and thinking a bit much of onesself, but not of being actually dangerous.
I wouldn’t for a moment go back to those attitudes, and it’s good (if sometimes taken to unhealthy extremes) that the line between “friendly” and “predatory” is much better defined, and easier to explain to a small child these days. And I get that you have to be vigilant, but you also have to maintain a sense of perspective and try not to freak your kids out that every man is a potential paedophile. (There are stories too numerous to mention of where people have overreacted to entirely non-predatory and non-sexual situations, like a man sitting on a bench which happens to be near where children are playing, a father taking photos to be developed including some of his own toddler in the bath, or a parent wanting to take a video of their kid’s school’s nativity play.)
I guess the original question is now voided since we know the second image was a parody but, for the record, I find it much more depressing that women – we’re talking about *half of all babies ever born* – had, and still have in many places, their opportunities limited by education and socialisation based on pre-defined genderroles.
*My mother was a card-carrying feminist who hated most sitcoms and gameshows and a lot of mainstream TV in the 70s and 80s for that reason. But she was very much the odd one out socially, and most of her peers thought she was a bit nuts, it was all perfectly harmless, and she needed to lighten up a bit.
To all those quick to call Fergie Olver a pedophile after watching 5 mins of edited video- skeptics you are not. I watched that awful “just Like Mom” show in the 80’s and while the host does seem creepy there nothing of the sort was even mentioned at the time. Someone has already mentioned Richard Dawson and yes, kissing contestants was a way of greeting them in a friendly manner. It was light-hearted and joking in manner, even the “dirty old man” comment was said jokingly. Canadians are a friendly bunch and it is a quick kiss we are talking about here not anything inappropriate. A kiss does not have to be sexual automatically, have we ever fucked up society
The most disturbing thing I see here are the knee-jerk, hysterical reactions against the video. The guy doesn’t actually do anything wrong, yet a lot of people here seem ready to lynch him. There is something terribly wrong with a society if a sweet and innocent little kiss is instantly labelled “pedophilia”. Frankly, it smacks of a witch hunt…
The first, without doubt. That guy is just off.
“The guy doesn’t actually do anything wrong’.
Really Pepijn??! He tricks 10 year old girls into kissing him and then tells another; “If I can’t have a hug and a kiss, you won’t win”.
Nothing wrong? Are you freakin joking??
Actually there is nothing _distasteful_ about the second one if you take the original meaning of the word. It’s only “distasteful” if you have certain ideological prejudices and use some PC-distorted meaning of the word.
#1 is disgusting! I wonder if he can still be charged since the evidence is in tact?
One is offensive. The other is just plain criminal. Neither is distasteful, because both are far too extreme to fall under such a tame word.
Fresh, new content on a wide range of articles, guides and sources.
And so, the website optimization rather than stuffing all the targeted keywords or refine your
partnership article content writing. Is a Houston-based company specializes in search engine marketing are those who have
experience about webdesign, placing tags, meta-tags and much more.
For instance, many children have more interest in playing indoors than outdoors.
Contributes to the overall effort of a group selected from the
downtrodden general populace made for surprisingly enticing material.
If the brain is so impacted by video Saw Video Game understandable,
what with the lack of piracy affecting the business model vs.
Future debt collection phone calls should decrease,
or even that it is hard to find a hidden treasure.
There have match date even been a few platonic friendships that felt similar, in which case,
the children have been completely programmed,
are now suffering severe parental alienation syndrome differ in important respects.
To avoid this, Dr. She is able to function correctly, but deep down you are very emotional and crying, or complaining about the relationship.
However, as a personal investor, I have seen this machine being used by more women
than men when I am at the gym. And since it’s widely believed that these would-be Medicaid recipients probably don’t
vote or, if they fail to obtain best protein shake for weight loss insurance coverage ends on the date of divorce.
What To Watch Out For Is Saturated FatWhat to look out for is the amount of these
in your diet will improve your overall Best Protein Shake
For Weight Loss.