That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. An African American is much more likely to be a [edit: convicted] murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one.
If I were a parent I would be trying to mitigate the risk to my child. As I previously stated it is unfair but not unfounded.
It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact.
> An African American is much more likely to be a murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one.
* I don't live in the US, I am from the UK. The term African American doesn't really mean much here.
* If there was a young guy dressed in sports gear and appeared to be somewhat of a lout, no matter what the colour of his skin I would cross the road.
It is unfair. Sure. But when I was a younger man (I am almost 40 now), I used to be followed about and stopped by police and security because I was simple 1) Male 2) Under 25. People are simply mitigating the amount of risk to themselves, business and family.
As usual, it's not the facts that are in dispute here, but their interpretation.
I didn't say anything about Black men. I said if I saw young men in General that looked like louts I would be wary.
This maybe be an American thing. I am not from the US, I've never been to the US so I don't know. There are plenty of groups of yobs in the UK in poorer areas. Outside of London and the big cities these tend to be white. In my own home town (which is 99% white) there are 4 or 5 problem areas where you don't walk through at night because you get surrounded by youths. It happened to me at least once or twice when I was in my 20s and I only got left alone because one of the guys knew my brother.
I get so bored of this "well you secretly meant something else because I want to label you a bad person".
Firstly, I doubt many parents actually do do their research on this and use such a statistic to inform their decision. More likely it will be based on gut feeling.
Secondly, the probabilities are the wrong way round. More relevant how likely a given man is to be a sex offender, vs the likelihood for a given woman. If both probabilities are very tiny then despite their relative magnitudes there are other things to worry about.
Thirdly, "sex offender" is an extremely broad term and the great majority of those offenses would not have involved nursery age children.
[citation needed]
It is true that a black man is more likely to be prosecuted for murder but that’s a wholly different statistic.
EDIT: In fact it is higher at least in the UK
> In 2011, males accounted for the vast majority of prosecutions for sexual offences (98.2 per cent).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
In a given year, there are about as many black bodies as white bodies, while the population ratio is 1 : 6.
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-hom...
> Of the 13,455 cases from last year in which the FBI listed a victim's racial information, 7,039 victims – or 52.3 percent – were black. That compares with 5,854 cases – or 43.5 percent – in which the victim was white, an increase of about 8 percent from last year.
> It's a disparity that becomes more pronounced in the context of population, as 2015 Census estimates suggest that whites account for 77.1 percent of the overall U.S. population of roughly 321 million, while blacks comprise 13.3 percent.