Re: What did they do?
posted at 8/10/2012 10:22 AM EDT
In Response to Re: What did they do?
In Response to Re: What did they do? : Yogafriend..it is a generalization because it's meant to encompass all violent crimes that occur. You raise great points that white males may be less inclined to report crimes such as sexual assault and even domestic violence and while that would account for a certain percentage, the overall profile of a victim of a violent crime puts white males at the bottom..those least likely to be victims. Obviously, the statistic isn't meant to say that white males are never victimized. It simply states that as a percentage of victims of violent crimes, white males are the least likely. Using your example of the Church pedophile priests...yes..they were targeting boys but not only white boys. Minority boys were victims as well. It seemed like there were a lot of victims, but that is only because it was a big story. The number of white male boys victimized by pedophile priests is tiny in comparison to the number of young girls sexually asssaulted on a daily basis...or the number of poor (mostly minority) children overall who are victims of child abuse on a daily basis.
Posted by miscricket
Okay, fair enough, Cricket, but I just want to clarify a couple of points. I wasn't aware you were talking about violent crimes only, but either way, it's still fair to point out an insidious "silent emotional killer" that is in fact, statistically shown, to infiltrate by a wide margin, the straight, white male population, as I said earlier, 1 in 7 boys, vs 1 in 3 girls. All crimes that are sexual in nature have skewed statistics as you agreed, there is a keen awareness that there is a large percentage that is not ever reported.
I was speaking of a very specific crime, not in generalities as you have, pedophilia -- not general sexual assault or generic child abuse (not a sex crime) as you have. It is a known, statistically taken fact that boys out number girls by a wide margin in regard to their victimization by pedophiles.
Again, I only mention this because it is, in fact, an insidious, daily, on-going and chronic problem in our society that does target that specific population, and, in its aftermath, does account for and is the root of some of the on-going psychological problems with males in our society. I don't disagree with your general contention that straight, while males are less frequently targeted (in terms of percentages) than other sectors of the population, but since it was blended with statements about their societal dominance, I felt it was fair to point out a crime where they are the dominant victims.
One last thing re: the Olympics and the opening ceremony. Soon, we will see the closing, but I thought I'd point this out to you, as it might give you another perspective, which I feel you will appreciate. I'm not inferring that your news source was not truthful, but your account of the reason why NBC edited the coverage for American audiences vastly differs from what I read; also, there was airtime used for another political purpose that you may have missed.
As for NBC (and I'm not here to defend them), I read that the Olympics and the IOC must maintain a unified focus for all nations. Therefore, they do not want to spotlight the plight, devastation or political upset of any one country, because if they did it for one, they would not be able to prohibit doing it for another. That would shift the focus of the Olympics and put a spotlight on dividing the countries, rather than uniting them, which is one of the key missions of the Olympic games and competition. In editing out part of the opening ceremony that was centered around an attack on London, while respectful in nature, it was nonetheless outside of the policy of the IOC to air, and that's why it was cut. Can't say coverage across the world cut it, but that was the reason the US coverage took that course of action, according to what I read.
Far more long-standing has been the controversy and heavily debated disagreement regarding the "moment of silence" that was requested for the 40th anniversary of the tragic murders of Israeli athletes in Munich. The member of the IOC that was under the most scrutiny for lack of support, and at the center of the debate, is an Israeli, which, therefore, angered the Israeli people. So, you see, Americans are not the only ones who determine what is broadcasted, or decide what becomes part of the Olympic ceremony. While NBC may deserve criticism in other ways, framing them for the way they may have edited the ceremony may not be fair.
Bob Costas supported the issue re: the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of the Munich tragedy, making statements that were not sanctioned by NBC ahead of time; rather than scorn, he may deserve some praise, at least in this instance:
Hope this helps re-set your POV and further reinforces that news sources do vary greatly, and there will always be times when we don't see all the angles to a news story. Thanks.