Hacker News Reader

Comment by petercooper | Hacker News Reader

Early days on this one: "researchers asked 54 people online to explain, with no word limit, why women might be less likely to get CPR when they collapse in public" .. though at least they did use VR to attempt to measure behavior, but concluded: "a study with more participants is needed to statistically identify any significant gender gaps"

It doesn't seem surprising though. We've had stories in the UK where young children have wandered the streets for hours with no members of the public wanting to get involved because of the attitudes around stranger danger.

View on HN

Unfortunately, it's quite expected. I don't want to get into the debate about whether any of it is true or not, but I believe most agree that lot of the current online narrative either demonizes men or claims that fake sexual harrasment claims are commonplace.

It's not hard to see why being bombarded with such messaging on social media would lead to some people responding to it.

Do you disagree? There is no "innocent until proven guilty" with sexual harassment claims-- it's mostly "off with their head!" and no ability to defend oneself or present or argue evidence. You're tainted for life, regardless of the truth of some situation. Why shouldn't sexual harassment claims be feared?

Nit: In the UK the burden of proof is on the defendant by default. Innocent until proven guilty is a US thing.

I don't think I'd even point the finger at online narratives. I think the behavior we see in day to day life has a bigger effect on how we also behave in public. But maybe I'm being optimistic!

As I just said, I've been a party to and witnessed over a dozen entirely fake sexual harassment claims (those are just the ones where I was there when said harassment was said to have occurred when it didn't). I've actually seen more fake claims than real ones in my life (sorry). So I wouldn't point the finger at online narratives either.

I've been accused of fake sexual harassment. So have most of my friends. I actually think the internet underestimates how frequently it happens.

I'm interested in whether the available statistics from law enforcement underestimate how frequently it happens - and how one could possibly find out.

I have never been accused of sexual harassment, and none of my friends or family have been either.

It seems statistically unlikely that you and most of your friend group have all been accused of sexual harassment if your behavior was unimpeachable.

You seem to be proving the GP's point.

> It doesn't seem surprising though. We've had stories in the UK where young children have wandered the streets for hours with no members of the public wanting to get involved because of the attitudes around stranger danger.

Who would have thought that publicly considering every male to be a (potential) sexual predator would have negative consequences? In any case if you are male and ever in a situation where you consider helping someone but don't because you might be considered a perv or a creep, look for another, preferably female adult and involve them in the effort of helping.

In any case if you are male and ever in a situation where you consider helping someone but don't because you might be considered a perv or a creep, look for another, preferably female adult and involve them in the effort of helping.

I would hope if the situation were grave enough, the instinct to help would just kick in regardless. Like if a kid were hit by a car, most people will want to help if they can. It's the less grave 'grey area' situations where I think people hesitate (which could well include someone in cardiac arrest or maybe having a fit) and teaming up with other strangers seems like a reasonable compromise.

I was thinking about the little girl lost on the street crying. I've been screamed at for walking the same path as a woman and her child mostly because I was male. Always better to have a preferably female Witness with me.

What incentive is there to help at all given the univeral perception of society is that a male who renders assistance they must be, at best a pervert or more likely a 'pedo guy'.

"Teach your child to go to a woman if they are lost. Why? First, if your child selects a woman, it's highly unlikely that the woman will be a sexual predator."

> given the univeral perception of society

The responses to this thread should easily show this is in fact not a universal perception.

FWIW, HN is made up of a small niche of developers and entrepreneurs. It’s hardly representative of broader public sentiment.

And yet, even here there are a number of data points that show that it is, indeed, a strong perception.

I just remembered something from several years ago. My neighbors had a young boy and girl that were about 12 years old. She was rollerblading in the courtyard of our 8 unit complex. She crashed and started crying and I ran out to check and my brain surprised me. In a short amount of time, it decided she was ok enough not to be severely injured and decided to bail. Her parents came about 30 seconds later. I was always disappointed in myself with that situation but after seeing those stories of kids being manipulated into saying bad stuff happened between them and older people, a young male has to weigh the risks.

If she was dying, I'd do my best to help but if the injury is superficial or just comfort is needed, it's best to wait.

Also why men can't work at daycare centres. It is sad one pedo can spoil it for every male.

Here in the UK it's not unheard of, and especially in elementary education there has been a bit of a push to have more male teachers (all my kids have had at least one).

The only flat-out ban I've personally experienced is all my kids are dancers and men are forbidden from being backstage chaperones at the shows. Luckily, I don't want to be one.. :-D

My kids' daycare lets moms and dads volunteer, but only moms help kids in the bathroom. Not because they think the dads are abusers, but because it's far less likely that the moms are abusers. Seems like a strong policy backed by evidence, and both moms and dads support it.

What I'd call an actuarial approach. It's tricky, though, because it can be interpreted as discrimination.

For example, here in the UK young women used to get cheaper car insurance than young men, but this was outlawed – https://www.choose.co.uk/news/women-car-insurance-costs-to-s... (and in an amazing display of transparency, the head of a major insurer said: "As an insurer, I'm pleased. We will raise rates for young women: we won't bring them down much for young men. That means more profit").

Reply on news.ycombinator.com