They just don’t get it

There’s a dearth of volunteers for the “Big Brother” program and men are being blamed for lacking an “altruism gene”.  That’s not it.

As a lawyer, I read many decisions overturning child abuse allegations against men whose lives had been ruined, including spending years in prison, on specious charges brought by angry children, parents with a grudge and prosecutors on a mission. It’s certainly a fact that child abuse does exist and it’s a horrible thing – I’ve written here before of Ken Walker, a Maine Guide, who diddled young boys – I’d be tempted to shoot him were I to see him today for what he did to one of my friends. But would I volunteer to be a Big Brother and expose myself to the potential liability of a false claim of child abuse? Not on your life.

13 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

13 responses to “They just don’t get it

  1. Burning Madolf

    I’ve never thought of the liability issue. Also, found this a little double “standard-ish”
    “The group will sometimes match a boy child with a female mentor — never the other way around — but only on special request, Talbot said.”

    Yeah because no female has ever diddled a boy.

  2. Peeps

    I don’t think it’s as much because men have a lack of an altruism gene or even the fear of false allegations of child abuse as it is that there are too many men who spread their sperm around with as much though to the consequences as they have as to when they excrete a sh*t.
    Of course, some of these kids might be the product of a well-intentioned marriage that resulted in divorce, a father who passed away young or a father who is deployed overseas. However, in many of these cases, it is the lack of character of the men who squirted their semen recklessly and uncaringly than due to the lack of good character of the men who don’t seem to want to fit being a mentor/friend to these kids into their schedules.
    They shouldn’t blame the general population.

  3. So Greenwich

    The fact is that people don’t like to work to volunteer. Around here they are more than happy to cut a check or have their photo snapped at a benefit but actually working with people, serving food, providing mentorship, etc. is really not what they want. For those of us who do volunteer and actually DO the work, it means we do more, we end up shouldering a lot of the heavy lifting (often quite literally) and we get burned out. It is truly unfortunate that people would rather write a check then put sweat equity in as writing the check may get the kids to the circus but the important thing here is the mentoring, role-modelling and friendship for the child. IMHO.

    • So Greenwich – I’ve never been one of those who could afford to write a check, so I’ve been one of those, like you, who’s done some heavy lifting and I agree, in general principle, with your observation. But I’ve also worked side-by-side with some very wealthy people who could just as easily cut a check and soothed their conscience, so I wouldn’t use too broad a brush here. We have some great people in town,and they span the economic spectrum.

  4. Roger Kaputnik

    Please write me a check.

  5. Sorry Chris, you are dead dead wrong.

    I have been a Big for 20 years and also a board member of Southwestern Connecticut Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Where do you get off with your demeaning description of this great organisation? The vetting of the candidate Bigs is as detailed as the security clearance to the guys who are on the buttons at NORAD. Why would hedge funds sponsor a golf outing last week at Rolling Hills for the organisation? Why would corporations such as Xerox, sponsor Golf Tournaments at New Haven CC in August? The only diidlers in this fabulous organisation is in your mind.

    I’m really pissed at you for even posting this POS

    • I’m just reporting on why this former Boy Scout leader won’t volunteer for service. The article blamed a lack of an “altruism gene” for the failure of men to step up, and I’m suggesting that we’re scared to death of being branded as predators.

  6. Walt

    Well Dude –
    There you go again. Doing what you do best. Really pissing people off. You are a PRO!! I admire that.
    But you are correct. No matter what Sister_Disco says. There is no upside in doing this stuff. I believe in the mission, but the risks in actually doing it are far too great. So I give cash.
    Now, I think what we should do is found “Sugar Daddys”. It will focus on teenage girls between the ages of sixteen and sixteen, who have Daddy issues. What do you think? We make them wear push up bra’s and plaid skirts. In return, they get to eat as many corn dogs and lick as many ice cream cones as they want.
    You in, Uncle Chris?
    Your Pal,
    Walt

    PS – can you translate what Peeps is saying?

  7. Walt, I can’t help you on what Peeps is saying. I’m sure it’s important but I’m in the dark. But I do like your idea of helping confused 16-year-olds.

  8. Peeps

    There is a Rosetta Stone Peeps version for 2012 coming out soon. In the meantime, where does the problem really lie…with men who aren’t altruistic enough to volunteer to be a Big Brother or with men who squirt and split ASAP?

  9. anon

    Peeps: that’s a riot, the Rosetta Stone Peeps version for 2012. :-)

  10. second-to-last liberal standing

    “As a lawyer, I read many decisions overturning child abuse allegations against men whose lives had been ruined, including spending years in prison, on specious charges brought by angry children, parents with a grudge and prosecutors on a mission.”

    Funny, because the very first volunteer mentioned in the article is a lawyer. Perhaps he elects not to use paranoia as an excuse not to volunteer his time.