# I've given many my opinions, now I need help for a friend



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

My friend and his wife were recently at their local school in order to have a meeting with the principal and their daughter's 1st grade teacher. Before the meeting got underway my friend's wife excused herself to "use the little girl's room." When she came back the meeting commenced. Thing went well and when the meeting was concluding my friend turned to his wife and asked her where the restrooms were. She pointed to a hallway just a few steps to the left and my friend proceeded toward that direction. The principal stopped him and told him that he could not use the boys bathroom. He would need to use the faculty bathroom located on the other side of the building. Furthermore he would need to be escorted by either security or a male faculty member (the principal was female) so he couldn't "wander off." My friend initially thought she was joking and when he realized she was serious he asked her why. She said that any male that was not CORI checked could not be allowed to interact with students in the bathroom. He asked her why his wife was allowed to use the student bathroom and the principal replied that the rule only applied to men! She then added "It's for the safety of the students. As a parent you should understand."

Needless to say my friend was extremely upset and quickly left the building. Over the next few days he was able to confirm that this rule was system wide applying to all buildings in the city that housed elementary age students. Furthermore he told me that many other communities are doing this as well. My friend wanted to challenge the rule. He also talked about pulling their daughter and placing her in private school. His wife however cannot seem to understand what he is upset about. She echoed the principal's statement that its for the safety if the students and he should just drop it. He tried to tell her that he feels that he was being treated like a convicted pedophile simply because of his gender. This issue has now become a huge obstacle in their marriage because my friend feels his wife doesn't have his back anymore.

Is my friend correct? Have any of you heard of this type of thing before? Is he overreacting? Should he just drop it? How should he try to communicate his outrage to a wife that is apparently unable and unwilling to empathize? I admit I am at a loss here.


----------



## golfergirl (Dec 8, 2010)

Beowulf said:


> My friend and his wife were recently at their local school in order to have a meeting with the principal and their daughter's 1st grade teacher. Before the meeting got underway my friend's wife excused herself to "use the little girl's room." When she came back the meeting commenced. Thing went well and when the meeting was concluding my friend turned to his wife and asked her where the restrooms were. She pointed to a hallway just a few steps to the left and my friend proceeded toward that direction. The principal stopped him and told him that he could not use the boys bathroom. He would need to use the faculty bathroom located on the other side of the building. Furthermore he would need to be escorted by either security or a male faculty member (the principal was female) so he couldn't "wander off." My friend initially thought she was joking and when he realized she was serious he asked her why. She said that any male that was not CORI checked could not be allowed to interact with students in the bathroom. He asked her why his wife was allowed to use the student bathroom and the principal replied that the rule only applied to men! She then added "It's for the safety of the students. As a parent you should understand."
> 
> Needless to say my friend was extremely upset and quickly left the building. Over the next few days he was able to confirm that this rule was system wide applying to all buildings in the city that housed elementary age students. Furthermore he told me that many other communities are doing this as well. My friend wanted to challenge the rule. He also talked about pulling their daughter and placing her in private school. His wife however cannot seem to understand what he is upset about. She echoed the principal's statement that its for the safety if the students and he should just drop it. He tried to tell her that he feels that he was being treated like a convicted pedophile simply because of his gender. This issue has now become a huge obstacle in their marriage because my friend feels his wife doesn't have his back anymore.
> 
> Is my friend correct? Have any of you heard of this type of thing before? Is he overreacting? Should he just drop it? How should he try to communicate his outrage to a wife that is apparently unable and unwilling to empathize? I admit I am at a loss here.


My fight would be to implement rule for every gender not lift it. What the hell was his wife supposed to do? Make a scene? Why not feel comfort some rules are in place for his baby's safety not pout over it. I'd push for same rule for all genders, but I don't know what he expected.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## golfergirl (Dec 8, 2010)

Also, my kids were not allowed sleepovers at houses with no mother present. Single moms - fine. Single dads - no. Way more male pedophiles then females.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Hope1964 (Sep 26, 2011)

Wow, that is unreal!! I am on your friends side, not his wifes. That rule should be for both men and women or for neither.

Just another example of paranoia gone completely wild if you ask me. 

Sure most convicted pedophiles are men, but most men are not convicted pedophiles. Good lord.

Anyway, I guess if your friends wife really is going to take a stand that this is a deal breaker then your friend will need to back off about it. But I think he should try his level best to convince her this is something he passionately believes in and wants to take to the next level.

This reminds me of my fight to bring chickens to backyards in the city where I live. My husband didn't tell me how against it he was till after we were in MC. When I found out how much it really meant to him I backed off and just continue to support the efforts of others from afar. It boiled down to, it wasn't worth my marriage.


----------



## 381917 (Dec 15, 2011)

I think it's a good rule. For one thing, girls use the bathroom in stalls, boys use urinals out in the open. If anything, he should be demanding the same rule for men and women. I'd rather have that rule for both sexes than for random adults to be in the school bathrooms with little kids.


----------



## FrankKissel (Nov 14, 2011)

Beowulf said:


> My friend and his wife were recently at their local school in order to have a meeting with the principal and their daughter's 1st grade teacher. Before the meeting got underway my friend's wife excused herself to "use the little girl's room." When she came back the meeting commenced. Thing went well and when the meeting was concluding my friend turned to his wife and asked her where the restrooms were. She pointed to a hallway just a few steps to the left and my friend proceeded toward that direction. The principal stopped him and told him that he could not use the boys bathroom. He would need to use the faculty bathroom located on the other side of the building. Furthermore he would need to be escorted by either security or a male faculty member (the principal was female) so he couldn't "wander off." My friend initially thought she was joking and when he realized she was serious he asked her why. She said that any male that was not CORI checked could not be allowed to interact with students in the bathroom. He asked her why his wife was allowed to use the student bathroom and the principal replied that the rule only applied to men! She then added "It's for the safety of the students. As a parent you should understand."
> 
> Needless to say my friend was extremely upset and quickly left the building. Over the next few days he was able to confirm that this rule was system wide applying to all buildings in the city that housed elementary age students. Furthermore he told me that many other communities are doing this as well. My friend wanted to challenge the rule. He also talked about pulling their daughter and placing her in private school. His wife however cannot seem to understand what he is upset about. She echoed the principal's statement that its for the safety if the students and he should just drop it. He tried to tell her that he feels that he was being treated like a convicted pedophile simply because of his gender. This issue has now become a huge obstacle in their marriage because my friend feels his wife doesn't have his back anymore.
> 
> Is my friend correct? Have any of you heard of this type of thing before? Is he overreacting? Should he just drop it? How should he try to communicate his outrage to a wife that is apparently unable and unwilling to empathize? I admit I am at a loss here.


I suppose I could sorta understand he felt he was being treated unfairly, but at the end of the day, is it really that important that he be allowed to use the kids' bathroom in a grade school? I mean, how often is this going to come up?
I think if he tries to fight this, raises a big stink over it, people are going to wonder why a grown man is demanding the right to use a kids' washroom.
Seems to me there are far better, more productive battles to be waged out there.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

Thanks for the responses. I think he felt that he was being treated like a criminal. From what I can see if the rule were applied equally he would have less of a problem with it. I also think a lot of it is he feels his wife is minimizing his feelings. I could tell this really hurt him.

Edit: I do agree he should drop it. It won't get him anywhere.


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best (Feb 28, 2011)

of course he should feel discriminated against.
if he is going to fight it, he should fight for the same rule for women, not repealing it.

his wife should back him on that.


----------



## Chelle D (Nov 30, 2011)

I do think he was being a little to sensative about it... however, I think he would have grounds to feel outraged that it did not also happen to his wife.

They should make the rule apply to any adult that is not employed by the school.


----------



## sigma1299 (May 26, 2011)

That's completely insane. I thought we were innocent until proven guilty here in the US. It's amazing what governments, local, state and federal will do in the name of "protection" or "safety" - especially if they can fly it under the flag of children. 

If they made that rule so that it applied only to women it would be all over CNN and the ACLU would be picketing. 

I'd love to see him sue for discrimination and/or gender bias but were I him I wouldn't do it. Its not worth the aggravation. UFB!!!!


----------



## Complexity (Dec 31, 2011)

Kind of agree with the rule to be honest.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

Our school system has the same rule... but it applies to both sexes. In my youngest son's school, you have to sign in/sign out, the office is secured behind glass and they monitor who comes and goes, there are single, regular style bathrooms available for parents to use (not student bathrooms)... right across from the glass office.

It's all well and good ... last year there was a rash in some of the elementary schools with people (yes, they did happen to be men) coming in to some of the less secure schools and watching and propositioning boys in the boy's restroom. Happened about 2 or 3 times.

Nothing like having it actually happen to realize that maybe some of those rules are worthwhile. Now if they could just secure my son's high school better, I would feel more comfortable.

In my opinion, if he feels discriminated against, then HE should take it up with the principal/superintendent/school district and shouldn't take his vitriol out on his wife - it's not worth your marriage melting down over something like that.

He should turn that negativism into something positive and promote more positive change within his kid's school. And he should really be more concerned about the safety and welfare of the kids and be compliant ... after all it could be his own kid that could benefit from those rules.


----------



## 2nd_t!me iz_best (Feb 28, 2011)

sigma1299 said:


> If they made that rule so that it applied only to women it would be all over CNN and the ACLU would be picketing.


can anyone say gloria allred?
hmmm?


----------



## FrankKissel (Nov 14, 2011)

For those of you against the rule, what matters more ... A grown man's right to use a kiddie's bathroom or the kids' safety.
I have to admit, I'm not comfortable with strange men wandering the halls of my kids' school. I'm particularly not comfortable with one being alone in a washroom with a kid. Am I paranoid? Probably. But better to be paranoid with your kids' safety than be the father of a victim.
Again, at the end of the day, my kids' safety matters a lot more than a grown man's hurt feelings.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## mgperkow (Mar 8, 2012)

I'd have been furious about such an unequally applied rule. I'd want to pull my child out of that school, too. Especially with that mentality of, "as a parent, _ should understand." Yeah, I understand alright. I understand the kind of bigoted example you and your ilk are setting for my child. Apply the rule to all adults equally or to none of them._


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

you teach by example and this school is teaching its ok to discriminate aginst Men.

political correctness run amuck.

he was not a stranger he was a parrent who need to relieve him self. not like he was wandering the hall if he didn't come back in 10 min tops they would have gone looking for him. he would have to be one fast pedifile to locate a boy durning school hours and a place to molest him.

totally riduculess if that was said to a womem there would be a lawsuit for sure. If it were me I'd call the ACLU and see what my rights were


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

It saddens me
to see how complacent we have become more and more of our rights are being taken away all in the guise of safety.


----------



## Accipiter777 (Jul 22, 2011)

If a lesbian was at an all girls school and was told what that husband was told, it'd would be an outrage....


----------



## Accipiter777 (Jul 22, 2011)

FrankKissel said:


> For those of you against the rule, what matters more ... A grown man's right to use a kiddie's bathroom or the kids' safety.
> I have to admit, I'm not comfortable with strange men wandering the halls of my kids' school. I'm particularly not comfortable with one being alone in a washroom with a kid. Am I paranoid? Probably. But better to be paranoid with your kids' safety than be the father of a victim.
> Again, at the end of the day, my kids' safety matters a lot more than a grown man's hurt feelings.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



As a parent, I'd want the RIGHT thing to be done. ALL adults must use FACULTY restrooms. THATS the way to go.


EDIT> This was NOT a strange man wandering the halls....


----------



## Acorn (Dec 16, 2010)

I am stunned at the selective enforcement of the rule. I do not understand how such blatant gender bias could remotely be considered legal in a public place. Either kids need protection from adults or they do not. Pick one.

During the course of my marriage, I have listened and been sympathetic to many stories of perceived discrimination against my wife and supported her. After all that, if she carried on like the wife in the OP, I'd be pretty upset too.


----------



## FrankKissel (Nov 14, 2011)

chillymorn said:


> It saddens me
> to see how complacent we have become more and more of our rights are being taken away all in the guise of safety.


Hate to burst your bubble, but you do not - nor have you ever had - a "right" to use the bathroom of your choosing in a school. 
Though I look forward to your protest and lawsuit demanding the "right" to share a urinal alongside grade school boys. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.

To 99 percent of the kids at the school, this guy is a stranger.

And yeah, it should be applied to both men and women. But, really, it's not a big deal.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hisfac (Feb 10, 2012)

I think the guy is taking it too personally which makes me wonder if he's got something to hide.

If it was me I'd be annoyed and I'd step outside and piss in the bushes outside the school.

I certainly wouldn't make such an issue out of it with my wife (if I still had one) that it would become a bone of contention in the marriage.

I think the rule is ok but it oughta be universally applied to both genders even though apparently there are more male sex offenders than females. 

That much being said I will reiterate that it's not such a big freaking deal and there are bigger fish to fry such as global warming, terrorism, pollution and the spread of disease in 3rd world countries and that's just for starters.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

hisfac said:


> I think the guy is taking it too personally which makes me wonder if he's got something to hide.
> 
> If it was me I'd be annoyed and I'd step outside and piss in the bushes outside the school.
> 
> ...


I know the guy. He doesn't have anything to hide. I think he was embarrassed and frustrated. And I know he is very hurt by his wife's attitude toward this. I guess I can see both sides which is why I asked for feedback. On the one hand I can see protecting children. On the other hand I do feel it is discriminatory to selectively enforce the rule based on gender.

A thought occurred to me (not always a good thing I grant you.) What if we weren't discussing gender here but race. What if they determined that people of a certain minority committed more crime and therefore had to have more restrictions to protect the children. What if they were told to use another bathroom because it would be safer that way? Would we accept that?


----------



## hisfac (Feb 10, 2012)

Beowulf said:


> I know the guy. He doesn't have anything to hide. I think he was embarrassed and frustrated. And I know he is very hurt by his wife's attitude toward this.


I get that he was embarassed and frustrated. Me thinks he's taking this a wee bit too personally and too seriously which makes me wonder what else might be triggering his over the top reaction. He's not being singled out here yet he acts like everyone is pointing the finger at him and accusing him of being a child molester and the only thing I can come up with is 'guilty conscience'. So what you know the guy. You don't know everything about him.. you just never know about people and his reaction is rather odd. At least the intensity of it. 



Beowulf said:


> A thought occurred to me (not always a good thing I grant you.) What if we weren't discussing gender here but race. What if they determined that people of a certain minority committed more crime and therefore had to have more restrictions to protect the children. What if they were told to use another bathroom because it would be safer that way? Would we accept that?


Race issues are much more sensitive in nature than gender issues, of course we we wouldn't accept that, it's like racial profiling. 

Men get the short end of the stick in many ways, and in others, women do. Only recently did women start matching mens salaries and being treated as equals in other ways. That's the ebbs and flows and changes of society. Deal with it by lobbying, or pushing for votes for your favorite legislater, not by throwing a fit and having a marriage crisis over being told to use a different bathroom.


----------



## golfergirl (Dec 8, 2010)

The 'discrimination' might be based on urinals vs. stalls. Is this guy sensitive over everything? What did he expect his wife to do? Honest question.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

golfergirl said:


> The 'discrimination' might be based on urinals vs. stalls. Is this guy sensitive over everything? What did he expect his wife to do? Honest question.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


No he's not a very sensitive guy at all. I think he expected his wife to at least understand his anger and frustration, not dismiss it. That part I get. My wife will come home sometimes from work and be railing about a specific event. When she tells me I may not understand why she is so upset but I empathize with her enough to acknowledge her feelings. From what my friend has told me his wife basically thought he shouldn't have been upset at all.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

FrankKissel said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but you do not - nor have you ever had - a "right" to use the bathroom of your choosing in a school.
> Though I look forward to your protest and lawsuit demanding the "right" to share a urinal alongside grade school boys. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
> 
> To 99 percent of the kids at the school, this guy is a stranger.
> ...


I think your mistaken . any instutitution that recieves state local or federal funding is supost ti give access to the general public.


----------



## Hicks (Jan 14, 2011)

In a school, no adult should be permitted to use the kid's bathroom.
That's just common sense.

He should go to the board of education meetings and lobby for a new policy, if he feels that strongly about it.

Having this be a problem in his marriage is nonsensical.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

FrankKissel said:


> Hate to burst your bubble, but you do not - nor have you ever had - a "right" to use the bathroom of your choosing in a school.
> Though I look forward to your protest and lawsuit demanding the "right" to share a urinal alongside grade school boys. Thomas Jefferson would be proud.
> 
> To 99 percent of the kids at the school, this guy is a stranger.
> ...


I think it should be applied equally. As for whether or not it is a big deal, I am troubled by a policy that teaches children that one gender is to be trusted while another cannot. YMMV.


----------



## mgperkow (Mar 8, 2012)

Beowulf said:


> A thought occurred to me (not always a good thing I grant you.) What if we weren't discussing gender here but race. What if they determined that people of a certain minority committed more crime and therefore had to have more restrictions to protect the children. What if they were told to use another bathroom because it would be safer that way? Would we accept that?


I don't see a difference, whether we're talking about gender or race. I'm strongly against any rule or administrative measure that is applied based on characteristics that are beyond a person's control. Nature and circumstances make many things in life unequal enough as it is. I believe that we, as a society, should push for equal treatment in as many degrees as possible. The problem that always arises when you start profiling a group of people for simply who or what they _are_ is that you impose undue hardship on innocent people for no reason other than suspicion, and in most cases that suspicion doesn't even have a logical basis (i.e., a majority percentage of the group you are profiling will be innocent). You're classifying them as suspects, potentially guilty persons, based solely on who or what they are, often even regardless of other potentially significant factors, and that is not fair treatment. I don't care that there are more male sex offenders than female sex offenders. It's also true that women are much more likely to get pregnant than men, so does that mean we should agree that women shouldn't perform some jobs because it creates a risk for unborn children? You could certainly make an argument for it, but that doesn't make it fair and equitable, especially in the face of it being a condition that the person who is affected cannot control.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

Ok, I talked to my friend again this morning. I asked him to tell me more.

He is not necessarily against the policy if it applied to everyone regardless of gender. He said "so men are treated like pedophiles but a strange woman can go into the bathroom and interact with students. What if she is mentally unstable? Why is that ok?"

The policy states that faculty are not to use the student bathrooms. The policy states that male visitors are not allowed to use the student bathroom. He just wants the word male removed from the policy.

He says the attitude of the female principal was very condescending. He said there is no part of the policy that required him to be escorted by security or a male faculty member. He said she looked at him in an accusatory manner and spoke with disdain. Could she be one of these feminazi's that have been talked about on the boards lately? He initially wanted to report the principal but his wife gave him hell for even suggesting it.

As far as his wife. When he cooled off he finally decided to write a letter to the superintendent requesting that the word male be removed for safety reasons and for fairness. He asked his wife to sign the letter with him. He said it was very respectful. She told him she wouldn't sign it and furthermore he'd better not even send it. He said she called him stupid. He's very upset about this. His words "she is always asking me to share my feelings and when I do she calls me stupid. When she had her depression, I didn't understand it but I supported her. Now I want her support and she treats me this way?!"

I guess his wife had a period of PPD after their daughter was born and for a while he had to care for his daughter and his wife while continuing to work. He feels that she is not being there for him like he was for her.


----------



## mgperkow (Mar 8, 2012)

I think she ought to support him, not only because I agree with his stance, but also because spouses ought to support each other as much as possible. I don't see how showing him her support would even be likely to harm her in any significant way.


----------



## anotherguy (Dec 14, 2011)

I have kids in school.. but I admit I have not been confronted with CORI rules in this way.

Yeah sure.. you need to be CORI checked before you can ...lets say.. be a chaperone for a school event etc. They also get very nervous when picking kids up after school from afternoon programs.. checking licenses etc. All of this makes infinite sense to me.. there are simply too many kids, and free and unobstructed access to them is probably a bad idea.

I also have no problem being told to use the staff bathroom, no big deal, right?

It is a little odd to see gender specific roadblocks put up in that specific situation.. but I am surprising myself to note that I dont have a problem with it.

You can get all defensive and say "I was treated like a criminal! A Pedophile!" and start hyperventilating about the injustice of it.... It is missing the point. The point is... I think it is a reasonable position to take that before people are allowed to be 'alone' with kids in such a setting, people should expect to have background checks beforehand.

"BUT I WAS JUST GOING TO THE BATHROOM!"

Lighten up. Get over it, your moral superiority, and yourself. Your 'rights' have not been trampled, and no.. you are not being treated like a criminal. Use the other bathroom for crissakes. Now your friend feels abandoned by his wife too? He sounds a bit like a self-centered pain-in-the-a$$.  Sorta.

My wife makes popcorn at the school for the kids once a month or so. Pretty sure they did a CORI check on her.

It is NOT, paranoia run amok. It is taking basic precautions to screen people that have unhindered access to a gigantic pool of children. Simple as that.

He may get the rule changed - and make women suffer the same 'injustice'.. of using a seperate bathroom. Maybe its not a bad thing. I wonder what it really is going to accomplish? Make him feel better? Good for him.


----------



## Thor (Oct 31, 2011)

Interesting situation.

As far as his wife, I think she is being sexist and bigoted in this matter. She is apparently in agreement that all men should be suspected of being a pedophile until proven otherwise, but women should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

As to the bathroom rule, I like it but it should apply equally to men and women.

What about a transgender person? The man who is cross dressing in the process of having a gender change operation. He has the legal right to be considered a woman, so he could legally use the little girls' room. Or if he were forced to use the little boys' room dressed as a woman but standing in the stall or at the urinal to pee? The legal minefield is too dangerous in all directions even without complications. So just make all visiting adults use the faculty bathroom.

For years I was a classroom volunteer in the public elementary school. It made me uncomfortable when the younger kids, like 1st grade, would want to sit close or even on my lap when reading books. It is just the nature of little kids to be like that, and it is I believe completely normal and healthy. But I was uncomfortable with it because of the possibility of false allegations. And honestly as a parent I would be uncomfortable with my kids sitting on some stranger's lap at school. I would never be alone in a classroom with just kids.

The only time I have had to be background checked was when I became an adult member/advisor to the church teen/20's youth ministry band. Times are indeed a-changin'.


----------



## Acorn (Dec 16, 2010)

It sounds like he is seeing a bunch of shallowness and disrespect from his wife that he hadn't been aware of before. I really don't blame him for feeling let down.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

anotherguy said:


> I have kids in school.. but I admit I have not been confronted with CORI rules in this way.
> 
> Yeah sure.. you need to be CORI checked before you can ...lets say.. be a chaperone for a school event etc. They also get very nervous when picking kids up after school from afternoon programs.. checking licenses etc. All of this makes infinite sense to me.. there are simply too many kids, and free and unobstructed access to them is probably a bad idea.
> 
> ...


If background checks for volunteers and closely monitoring those in a child's school so appropriate, then why would these not be applied to all people, rather than just one gender. What is the rational that such a policy as described in the original post should apply to men, but not women?


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

Beowulf said:


> Is my friend correct? Have any of you heard of this type of thing before? Is he overreacting? Should he just drop it? How should he try to communicate his outrage to a wife that is apparently unable and unwilling to empathize? I admit I am at a loss here.


Yes your friend is correct, no he isn`t overreacting..the county school board.

If his wife can`t understand he dismay then she will never understand it because she`s simply too dense to do so.
The reasoning for his feelings is quite obvious.

If this were to happen in my school district I`d retain a lawyer and end this idiotic practice as it is not defensible in a court of law due to what is obvious gender bias.

Your friend may not have the financial ability to do so.


----------



## 381917 (Dec 15, 2011)

Beowulf said:


> Ok, I talked to my friend again this morning. I asked him to tell me more.
> 
> *He is not necessarily against the policy if it applied to everyone regardless of gender. He said "so men are treated like pedophiles but a strange woman can go into the bathroom and interact with students. What if she is mentally unstable? Why is that ok?"*
> 
> ...


Okay, it sounds like he is acting like the male version of a feminist LOL. A masculinist haha? He didn't think it was one bit worrisome that his wife was allowed to use the student restroom until HE wasn't allowed to use the student restroom. So he's making it a fairness/discrimination issue. He wasn't worried about the safety of kids, he's butt hurt that he was barred from the boys restroom. I can see why his wife thinks it is stupid for him to make a big deal out of it. 

It sounds like the principal was probably not very diplomatic with him. She probably thought he was a weirdo for pushing to use the boys restroom. But causing problems with the school administration can cause problems for the children. And get the parents a reputation with the faculty as well. That is probably why his wife doesn't want him to make waves. I certainly don't want to be known at the school as 'that parent.'

I agree that their are some crazy women out there, but the vast, vast majority of child sexual predators are men. Most of the volunteers at the school are probably women (moms) and escorting every one of them to the restroom every time she needs to pee or change her tampon would be a pain for administration. Might, in the end, result in the school having to restrict parent volunteers altogether. I've heard of schools where parents are never allowed in the classrooms. Maybe stuff like this is why.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

381917 said:


> Okay, it sounds like he is acting like the male version of a feminist LOL. A masculinist haha? He didn't think it was one bit worrisome that his wife was allowed to use the student restroom until HE wasn't allowed to use the student restroom. So he's making it a fairness/discrimination issue. He wasn't worried about the safety of kids, he's butt hurt that he was barred from the boys restroom. I can see why his wife thinks it is stupid for him to make a big deal out of it.


Why? The point was that neither he nor his wife were CORI checked. If that is the reason for not allowing him to use the restroom unescorted (and that is certainly a reasonable position), why should that not apply to the wife (and women in general) as well.



> It sounds like the principal was probably not very diplomatic with him. She probably thought he was a weirdo for pushing to use the boys restroom. But causing problems with the school administration can cause problems for the children. And get the parents a reputation with the faculty as well. That is probably why his wife doesn't want him to make waves. I certainly don't want to be known at the school as 'that parent.'


He was a weirdo because he was confused about a policy applying to him and not her? I don't see that. Nor do I see backing down just because it would upset the school administrators. You do have to use judgement, but I refuse to live in fear of them.



> I agree that their are some crazy women out there, but the vast, vast majority of child sexual predators are men. Most of the volunteers at the school are probably women (moms) and escorting every one of them to the restroom every time she needs to pee or change her tampon would be a pain for administration. Might, in the end, result in the school having to restrict parent volunteers altogether. I've heard of schools where parents are never allowed in the classrooms. Maybe stuff like this is why.


This does not stand up to scrutiny. The reason that he could not use the bathroom was because he was not CORI checked. Each one of those volunteers (male or female) could and would certainly be checked and thus allowed to go without an escort. As for your example, I have never heard of a policy allowing one gender free access while another is restricted. I am all for saftey, but fail to see any rational reason why policy should be applied only to one gender.


----------



## 381917 (Dec 15, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> *Why? The point was that neither he nor his wife were CORI checked. If that is the reason for not allowing him to use the restroom unescorted (and that is certainly a reasonable position), why should that not apply to the wife (and women in general) as well.*
> I missed that if it was mentioned in the OP. Not all schools require that, my son's school doesn't require background checks of any volunteers. Or maybe they do, but I volunteer there and have not had one.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

> I think it's really odd that a grown man would make a big deal of being told he should use the staff restroom. If they told me to use the staff restroom, I would say sure. Great. I'd actually rather use the staff restroom, but I don't know where it is at my son's school. I wouldn't be like "Hey! Wait a minute! I just saw HER go to the kid's bathroom. I should be allowed to go in there too! That's not fair!!" But yeah, I won't go against the school administrators unless I think there is an issue that could severely affect my child. I'm not going to start a war with them over something that will have no effect on a child's well being.


But again you are ignoring the facts. He was not just told to use the faculty bathroom. After his wife went ahead and used the girls bathroom with not so much as a peep from the administrator, the husband was told he had to use the faculty bathroom and had to be escorted either by security or a male faculty member because he was not CORI checked. That is a big difference in treatment.

I have yet to see a rational basis for this difference in treatment. As far as not being a difference in my child's well being, I disagree. Kid's notice those things, even if they don't exactly understand what is going on. If the principle and the school are doing this here, I don't see any reason to think they are not doing it else where.

I recognize that I am coming into this with my own bias. I went to a school where one teacher actively promoted, in her own way, the idea that girls were smarter and better than boys. I know of parents that will not let their children attend a sleep over if the father will be home (even though the mother is there as well), just to be safe. I don't see this policy as being anything close to rational.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Lets make a deal. Men get escorted to the bathroom. Women drive in the far right lane without access to their makeup.


----------



## 381917 (Dec 15, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> But again you are ignoring the facts. He was not just told to use the faculty bathroom. After his wife went ahead and used the girls bathroom with not so much as a peep from the administrator, the husband was told he had to use the faculty bathroom and had to be escorted either by security or a male faculty member because he was not CORI checked. That is a big difference in treatment.
> 
> I have yet to see a rational basis for this difference in treatment. As far as not being a difference in my child's well being, I disagree. Kid's notice those things, even if they don't exactly understand what is going on. If the principle and the school are doing this here, I don't see any reason to think they are not doing it else where.
> 
> I recognize that I am coming into this with my own bias. I went to a school where one teacher actively promoted, in her own way, the idea that girls were smarter and better than boys. I know of parents that will not let their children attend a sleep over if the father will be home (even though the mother is there as well), just to be safe. I don't see this policy as being anything close to rational.


I don't think kids notice what bathrooms the parent volunteers use or would even think about why the parents would use specific bathrooms.

Fact is, a child is much more likely to be molested by a man than by a woman. Does that mean all men are molesters? Of course not. Maybe the principal has herself been sexually abused. I don't know the actual statistics, but a lot of women (and men as well, but more women) have been. Parents who don't let their kids have sleepovers with dads home are probably overprotective and hyper-aware because they have been abused. At least, the only woman I have known who was like that had been repeatedly abused as a child and did not want that to happen to her daughter.


----------



## mgperkow (Mar 8, 2012)

Jeez... What a crazy world this is. People are guilty until proven innocent, and schools teach our children bigotry and lies. *SMH*


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

381917 said:


> I don't think kids notice what bathrooms the parent volunteers use or would even think about why the parents would use specific bathrooms.


I would not assume they don't notice. I would also not assume that this is the only policy is that is applied to one gender and not the other.



> Fact is, a child is much more likely to be molested by a man than by a woman. Does that mean all men are molesters? Of course not. Maybe the principal has herself been sexually abused. I don't know the actual statistics, but a lot of women (and men as well, but more women) have been. Parents who don't let their kids have sleepovers with dads home are probably overprotective and hyper-aware because they have been abused. At least, the only woman I have known who was like that had been repeatedly abused as a child and did not want that to happen to her daughter.


I fail to see how the principles personal experiences allow her to apply a policy different based on the gender. 

As far as the "facts" you offer, the fact is that a child is much more likely to be abused by a family member or person they no rather than a stranger. So under your facts, we should in fact prevent those people from coming into contact with children.

Again, I don't have a problem with the policy. What I do have a problem with is applying against one gender and not another, based on what we think we know. I have little doubt what the reaction would have been had the genders been reversed.


----------



## 381917 (Dec 15, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I would not assume they don't notice. I would also not assume that this is the only policy is that is applied to one gender and not the other.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just curious, what other male-biased school policies do you think a school could have? 

Fact still is, if a child is molested by a stranger (or a person they know) that stranger (or person they know) is most likely going to be a male. I never said that all males should be prevented from coming into contact with children. But I do understand why a lot of people are more cautious with men. Because a lot more people have personally been abused by men than by women. The OP's friend is not afraid that the children at his child's school will be harmed by a woman in the bathroom. If he were, he would have been concerned that his wife went to the girl's bathroom. 

I don't think most women would have a problem with being led to the faculty bathroom. If my husband used the kids bathroom but I was stopped and led to an adult bathroom, we'd have probably laugh about it later, but I wouldn't make a stink and I wouldn't be outraged. It's a good idea to background check everyone, but that just means they haven't been caught, not that they are definitely safe.


----------



## tacoma (May 1, 2011)

This is just another mindless ineffective policy born from the overused overrated cultural cliche' of "protecting the children".

It`s asinine.


----------



## Acorn (Dec 16, 2010)

381917 said:


> Fact still is, if a child is molested by a stranger (or a person they know) that stranger (or person they know) is most likely going to be a male.


Statistically speaking, where I live, if a crime is committed it will most likely be by an African-Amercian. Despite this knowledge, we as a society and got rid of policies that profiled people by their race.

Maybe we could apply that same enlightened thinking to the gender profiling situation the OP describes?


----------



## hisfac (Feb 10, 2012)

381917 said:


> I can see why his wife thinks it is stupid for him to make a big deal out of it.


I can too. She can't understand why he's so obsessed about it, she's worried about making wave's in the community and it just does not compute why he's taking it so personally when no other man seems to have an issue with it.

The guy is over the top, and acting irrational like I said I get where wifey is coming from she just wants him to drop it and shut the f$%k up about it already but for her to call him stupid is out of line.

I'm not big on the name calling, it's disrespectful and often indicates deeper issues in a marriage, my 2 cents.

A more appropriate response might be "honey, I get that you're upset but why fight City Hall, come to bed now, I wore that new lingerie you asked me to get"..


----------



## I'mInLoveWithMyHubby (Nov 7, 2011)

Personally, I like the rule. It would be nice if they enforced it in our school system. Heck, it would give another easy job opportunity to someone. There are several parents in the schools daily.

This guy is taking it too far in my opinion. Let it go. Life's too short to sweat the small stuff.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

381917 said:


> The OP's friend is not afraid that the children at his child's school will be harmed by a woman in the bathroom. If he were, he would have been concerned that his wife went to the girl's bathroom.


Knowing my friend I think its more likely that he wouldn't have thought of the safety issue involving bathroom usage. Having been confronted by the rule he obviously was a little put off that it applied only to men and not women. I don't believe he would have entertained a thought that his wife would be a threat to any child. Therefore why object to her using the student restroom? My feeling is that he cannot understand why he is not being thought of in the same manner and why the safety policy is not more universal in nature.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

hisfac said:


> I can too. She can't understand why he's so obsessed about it, she's worried about making wave's in the community and it just does not compute why he's taking it so personally when no other man seems to have an issue with it.
> 
> *I don't know that no other man has an issue with it. I don't believe my friend has any idea when this policy was put into place.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

381917 said:


> But causing problems with the school administration can cause problems for the children. And get the parents a reputation with the faculty as well. That is probably why his wife doesn't want him to make waves. I certainly don't want to be known at the school as 'that parent.'


But shouldn't the opinions of school personnel be less important to his wife than her husband's feelings? Isn't that a bit like covering up an affair because of what the neighbors might think? Seems petty on the wife's part to me but I'm probably biased because its my friend.


----------



## 381917 (Dec 15, 2011)

Beowulf said:


> Knowing my friend I think its more likely that he wouldn't have thought of the safety issue involving bathroom usage. Having been confronted by the rule he obviously was a little put off that it applied only to men and not women. I don't believe he would have entertained a thought that his wife would be a threat to any child. Therefore why object to her using the student restroom? *My feeling is that he cannot understand why he is not being thought of in the same manner and why the safety policy is not more universal in nature*.


Because most child molesters are men. By banning men, the vast majority of potential predators are barred from the bathroom. Adults don't need to be there anyway. There is no real benefit to it, just risk. I do think that all adults should be banned from the kid's restrooms, but I wouldn't make an issue of it.


----------



## 381917 (Dec 15, 2011)

Beowulf said:


> But shouldn't the opinions of school personnel be less important to his wife than her husband's feelings? Isn't that a bit like covering up an affair because of what the neighbors might think? Seems petty on the wife's part to me but I'm probably biased because its my friend.


I see what you're saying there. She shouldn't have called him stupid. But I wouldn't encourage my husband to embarrass our kid, who has to go to that school every day and be disciplined and managed by those people.


----------



## desert-rose (Aug 16, 2011)

I think your friend is over-reacting. It's not like he was actually called a pedophile. He was told that he needed to comply with a particular rule that was designed with good intentions in mind, even if it is a little extreme. Your friend seems to have turned this into a big deal when it needn't be. It might be worthwhile to try to set up a meeting to talk about why the rule is in place and whether or not it is sensible, but to yank his kid from school over it when it hasn't actually hurt anyone seems extreme. I know he wants his wife to have his back, but, if she doesn't agree with him, then she doesn't agree and it shouldn't be some big deal breaker. I don't know....I'm not a very political person and I believe in choosing one's battles carefully and sparingly.

Edit: Although, bringing the issue up in a meeting and pushing for ALL adults (regardless of gender) to be required to use the faculty restrooms instead of the children's restrooms might be one way he could turn this into something productive....


----------



## desert-rose (Aug 16, 2011)

Beowulf said:


> But shouldn't the opinions of school personnel be less important to his wife than her husband's feelings? Isn't that a bit like covering up an affair because of what the neighbors might think? Seems petty on the wife's part to me but I'm probably biased because its my friend.


I don't think this is a loyalty issue. If he was singled out and she didn't have his back, that might be a loyalty issue. However, it looks like all men are equally subject to this and it sounds like she just doesn't agree with his POV. Does he really want the kind of wife who always says "yes, dear" and has no mind of he own? Is she actively campaigning against him? THAT would be petty....


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

What is it that he wants in terms of policy?

1. That males be allowed to move around without an escort or
2. That the same rules that apply to men also be applied to females?

This policy is based on statistics. Your friend is taking a general policy very personally. 

The policy was constructed based on the incidence of adult male sexual abuse of children (which apparently is much more common/more violent/severe) than female sexual abuse of children. 

The truth is that this is at most a minor inconvenience for him from a practical standpoint and he is turning it into world war 3 at home. 





Beowulf said:


> My friend and his wife were recently at their local school in order to have a meeting with the principal and their daughter's 1st grade teacher. Before the meeting got underway my friend's wife excused herself to "use the little girl's room." When she came back the meeting commenced. Thing went well and when the meeting was concluding my friend turned to his wife and asked her where the restrooms were. She pointed to a hallway just a few steps to the left and my friend proceeded toward that direction. The principal stopped him and told him that he could not use the boys bathroom. He would need to use the faculty bathroom located on the other side of the building. Furthermore he would need to be escorted by either security or a male faculty member (the principal was female) so he couldn't "wander off." My friend initially thought she was joking and when he realized she was serious he asked her why. She said that any male that was not CORI checked could not be allowed to interact with students in the bathroom. He asked her why his wife was allowed to use the student bathroom and the principal replied that the rule only applied to men! She then added "It's for the safety of the students. As a parent you should understand."
> 
> Needless to say my friend was extremely upset and quickly left the building. Over the next few days he was able to confirm that this rule was system wide applying to all buildings in the city that housed elementary age students. Furthermore he told me that many other communities are doing this as well. My friend wanted to challenge the rule. He also talked about pulling their daughter and placing her in private school. His wife however cannot seem to understand what he is upset about. She echoed the principal's statement that its for the safety if the students and he should just drop it. He tried to tell her that he feels that he was being treated like a convicted pedophile simply because of his gender. This issue has now become a huge obstacle in their marriage because my friend feels his wife doesn't have his back anymore.
> 
> Is my friend correct? Have any of you heard of this type of thing before? Is he overreacting? Should he just drop it? How should he try to communicate his outrage to a wife that is apparently unable and unwilling to empathize? I admit I am at a loss here.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

I think that your friend has a problem. Safeguarding kids is a good thing and should be applauded instead of making a snit and the shcool is not responsible for protecting the image of adult males. Allowing adults, in what ever capacity, unsupervised access to children is a problem that we as a culture have a hard time facing and dealing with. I am glad to see that this school is making a stab at it. I hope they have other safeguards in place with teachers and coaches. 

The fact that this man makes a stink out of the protection of his own daughter is telling. It reflects self interest instead of the protection of the vulnerable. Your friend needs to get over himself. I am not insulted that the money in locked up in vaults in the bank, it is no reflection on me as an honest person. 

He is doing the male gender shtick - men are blammed for everything, men are treated badly, men are targeted ..... Unfortunately, the overwheming majority of people who sexually assault the vulnerable, women and children, are men. That is why men are the target group.I happen to think that is wrong. Men may be the perpetrators but I think in 90% of the cases, some woman knows what the man is doing and will not act to protect the vulnerable. 

That is why I think all laws, statutes, rules should be applied to men and women. Some Women can not be trusted to protect the vulnerable any more than some men can be trusted to resist taking advantage of them. 

I think the policy should apply to all adults. I certainly would not advocate doing away with the rule because one man is so absorbed with himself and the unfairness of the world towards poor men that He would take his child out of a school who is interested in her safety to put her in a private school with no rules governing contact of adults with kids. What a man he must be. 

I think he should make an apology to his wife for making a stink and begin to act like a grown up. All he had to do was to make a request the the rule be applied to all adults. Having a tantrum seems unmanly and weak. It like he is saying "they are picking on me booooo hoooo" I hope his wife does not lose repect for him.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MEM2020 (Aug 23, 2009)

ROTFL

Having trouble catching my breath. Still ROTFL

Had the exact same reaction - same thoughts - sans the fury. I have plenty of moments where the fury "ignites". Just glad it didn't tonight. Very tired and need to sleep soon. Can't reach dreamland whilst angry.....







Catherine602 said:


> I think that your friend has a problem. Safeguarding kids is a good thing and should be applauded instead of making a snit and the shcool is not responsible for protecting the image of adult males. Allowing adults, in what ever capacity, unsupervised access to children is a problem that we as a culture have a hard time facing and dealing with. I am glad to see that this school is making a stab at it. I hope they have other safeguards in place with teachers and coaches.
> 
> The fact that this man makes a stink out of the protection of his own daughter is telling. It reflects self interest instead of the protection of the vulnerable. Your friend needs to get over himself. I am not insulted that the money in locked up in vaults in the bank, it is no reflection on me as an honest person.
> 
> ...


----------



## hisfac (Feb 10, 2012)

MEM11363 said:


> ROTFL
> 
> Having trouble catching my breath. Still ROTFL
> 
> Had the exact same reaction - same thoughts - sans the fury.


I agree with Catherine's post too, I had the same thoughts as well. He's taking this way too personally. I really liked the bank vault analogy too (although that's a universally applied thing, not singling out a gender or a race).

The guy is throwing a temper tantrum and putting his wife in a rather difficult and tenuous situation (although I think her calling him stupid was over the top).

But I fail to see what's so funny about it especially to the point where you're laughing so hard you can't breathe?

I also don't see where there's any "fury".


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> I think that your friend has a problem. Safeguarding kids is a good thing and should be applauded instead of making a snit and the shcool is not responsible for protecting the image of adult males. Allowing adults, in what ever capacity, unsupervised access to children is a problem that we as a culture have a hard time facing and dealing with. I am glad to see that this school is making a stab at it. I hope they have other safeguards in place with teachers and coaches.
> 
> The fact that this man makes a stink out of the protection of his own daughter is telling. It reflects self interest instead of the protection of the vulnerable. Your friend needs to get over himself. I am not insulted that the money in locked up in vaults in the bank, it is no reflection on me as an honest person.
> 
> ...


My friend does not want to do away with the rule at all. Granted that most pedophiles are men but not all men are pedophiles. Just like one cannot say that all women are mentally stable and are no danger to children. When we were children we were taught not to talk to strangers. We were not taught not to talk to strange men. Strangers are strangers. I can fully understand a rule that reinforces that old standard by not forcing children to share a bathroom in a safe environment like a school with a stranger. I believe my friend understands that as well.

After his initial period of anger/frustration/embarrassment (24 hrs) he finally decided he wanted to simply write a letter to the superintendent of schools asking that this policy be equally applied to all adults regardless of gender for the safety of the students. That was when his wife reacted as she did and called his reaction stupid. He asked her to sign the letter to show solidarity. Not only did she refuse but she forbade him to send the letter. Doubtless this has escalated due to poor communication on the part of the school's principal and insensitivity on the part of my friend's wife. But I think a little understanding is required if we all want to get along in this world. Entrenching ourselves so firmly that we can't empathize with others also has the added effect that we cannot move when the Karma bus is bearing down on us.


----------



## golfergirl (Dec 8, 2010)

I understand being 'miffed' but this guy has a lot of time. I have written my letters and made my complaints, and I don't need my husband's show of solidarity. If he feels strongly about it, do it. If his wife doesn't like it, too bad for her. I do think she was out of line to call him stupid. He does need to examine what his ultimate goal is. Is it that he has true concerns about the women wandering the school or that his feelings were hurt and he's hiding behind the above? If this is his hill he chooses to die on, good luck! He hasn't even entered the world of organized sports for his child/children yet.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Guys, the reason he's taking it personnally is because...how do I say this...uhm... it happened to him. I don't have any emotion one way or another about it because I've never been presumed to be a criminal at my child's school. He has. He isn't a stranger wondering the halls. He checked in with the office and had a meeting with a staff member. Now he wants his wife to understand his side of the issue and she won't but we say he should just drop it. Other way around and we'd hear a thesis from certain posters about not meeting her emotional needs.Personally I would let my wife know I understand where she stands and its not with me and that I'm OK with it and move on on the matter the way I see fit without further discussion with her on the topic.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

381917 said:


> Just curious, what other male-biased school policies do you think a school could have?


I have no idea. Off the top of my head, perhaps they only require CORI check for male volunteers, thus making it more difficult for fathers to get involved. Allowing women to walk throughout the school, while stopping men and requiring registration with the offie and a reason for being there. You say the kids won't notice, but I would not be surprised if they wondered why mom can walk them straight to class while daddy has to go to the principle's office to get permission. 

Furthermore, if that is the priniciple's attitude, I am sure it comes out in dealing with parents. Addressing parents concerns with students differently depending upon whether it was the mom or dad who raised the issue. Teacher's may notice it and act accordingly. 

My sixth grade teacher would have everyone stand up who got an A in class only when the majority of As went to girls. She would then talk about how smart the girls were. If the majority of As were received by boys in a test, she would not do this. She did it once when another teacher was in the room, so I doubt it was a secret. 

The attitude suggested here can be manifest in a lot of different ways. 



> Fact still is, if a child is molested by a stranger (or a person they know) that stranger (or person they know) is most likely going to be a male. I never said that all males should be prevented from coming into contact with children. But I do understand why a lot of people are more cautious with men. Because a lot more people have personally been abused by men than by women. The OP's friend is not afraid that the children at his child's school will be harmed by a woman in the bathroom. If he were, he would have been concerned that his wife went to the girl's bathroom.


If molesting were the only issue, perhaps, but there are other safty issues, including kidnapping, which is much more closely balanced gender wise. So again, what is the rational basis for applying the policy different? What benefit is gained for doing so that outweighs applying it equally?

As for OP's friend not being afrad of women, I agree, but that is only a small part of the issue. He does not see his wife as a threat and he does not see himself as a threat. So when the ploicy reinforces his opinion with respect to his wife, but very clearly comes into opposition with respect to himself, his reaction is to be expected.



> I don't think most women would have a problem with being led to the faculty bathroom. If my husband used the kids bathroom but I was stopped and led to an adult bathroom, we'd have probably laugh about it later, but I wouldn't make a stink and I wouldn't be outraged. It's a good idea to background check everyone, but that just means they haven't been caught, not that they are definitely safe.


I fail to see why your hypothetical analysis of "most women" or your own feels should override what appears to be a unequally applied policy. The idea of just laughing something off because some people would think it is funny went out the window sometime ago. I don't see why it now gets to be applied because you are the one that finds it funny.

Again, I think the policy makes sense if it is equally applied. I am open to reconsidering if you (or anyone) can give me an explanation as to what benefits are derived from apply it one way for one gender and one way for another.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> I think that your friend has a problem. Safeguarding kids is a good thing and should be applauded instead of making a snit and the shcool is not responsible for protecting the image of adult males. Allowing adults, in what ever capacity, unsupervised access to children is a problem that we as a culture have a hard time facing and dealing with. I am glad to see that this school is making a stab at it. I hope they have other safeguards in place with teachers and coaches.
> 
> The fact that this man makes a stink out of the protection of his own daughter is telling. It reflects self interest instead of the protection of the vulnerable. Your friend needs to get over himself. I am not insulted that the money in locked up in vaults in the bank, it is no reflection on me as an honest person.
> 
> ...


Curious how you would react if you came to you husband about an incident where you felt insulted, and he told you that you were stupid, forbade you to address it and likened your reaction to a temper tantrum.


----------



## Enchantment (May 11, 2011)

Beowulf said:


> My friend does not want to do away with the rule at all. Granted that most pedophiles are men but not all men are pedophiles. Just like one cannot say that all women are mentally stable and are no danger to children. When we were children we were taught not to talk to strangers. We were not taught not to talk to strange men. Strangers are strangers. I can fully understand a rule that reinforces that old standard by not forcing children to share a bathroom in a safe environment like a school with a stranger. I believe my friend understands that as well.
> 
> After his initial period of anger/frustration/embarrassment (24 hrs) he finally decided he wanted to simply write a letter to the superintendent of schools asking that this policy be equally applied to all adults regardless of gender for the safety of the students. That was when his wife reacted as she did and called his reaction stupid. He asked her to sign the letter to show solidarity. Not only did she refuse but she forbade him to send the letter. Doubtless this has escalated due to poor communication on the part of the school's principal and insensitivity on the part of my friend's wife. But I think a little understanding is required if we all want to get along in this world. Entrenching ourselves so firmly that we can't empathize with others also has the added effect that we cannot move when the Karma bus is bearing down on us.


I think you should encourage him to go ahead and send his letter and try and get the policy changed - it would be in the best interests of the kids.

Then, you should give him some advice on how to competently handle fitness tests and disrespect from his wife (my guess would be that this would be unlikely to be an isolated incident, but if it is then he has some knowledge how to better respond to this kind of attitude in the future). 

Then gracefully butt out and let them work through this. Don't enable any potential festering resentments from him or his wife.


----------



## Gratitude (Feb 12, 2012)

I'm not sure what the regulations are in Australia regarding this but I would imagine the majority of schools wouldn't allow a male adult to enter a boys toilet on school grounds.

The reasoning to me is simple; men have urinals, the boys are more exposed. Also as mentioned before the majority of abusers are male. That is a fact. So working on these facts, schools have obviously implemented rules to protect the children as much as possible. Lets all be grateful child abuse has now been made more aware in the world than what my grandparents endured and people are now taking action, not like decades ago. This is a step forward, and if your friend is upset obviously that is his right but he needs to understand WHY it's in place and get past the personal offence he feels. Should there be an equal rule for women? I don't see the real need but for equality's sake, sure. I would have no problem with that.

If my husband were your friend he would have said I totally understand, and walked away feeling that much more safer about his daughter attending school. His daughters safety and wellbeing is his number one concern and always has been.

If your husband wants to fight an equality issue, this isn't it. This is a logical rule to protect the children. If my husband asked me to sign something saying the same for women, I wouldn't do it. Not because I don't agree that it would be fairer for all adults to come under the same rule regardless of sex, but because I'd think he was being ridiculous and fighting for something that has nothing to do with the well-being of the children, but all to do with how he feels targeted as a male. 

Nobody referred to him as a criminal, he chose to feel that way. He's looking for a fight as he feels offended about being attacked and singled out as a male, and since he'll probably never have the use for a school bathroom again, he should find an equality fight elsewhere. Because what he wants her to sign isn't for the children, it's for him. So don't bring it into the school. It's not like he seems concerned about adult women entering the toilets. Just the fact that they _can_. He needs to understand his wifes' viewpoint as well as his own. If she feels strongly about this too, she has the right to disagree with him. I wouldn't tell my husband to let me go rob a bank and if he said no, he wasn't supporting me. The point being, she has the right to disagree.


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

C'mon guys we know the only women abusers in our schools are the female teachers screwing their students. Oh, except for the few PTA moms out there. 

PTA mom headed to jail for sex with teen on Long Island | 7online.com


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

Gratitude said:


> I'm not sure what the regulations are in Australia regarding this but I would imagine the majority of schools wouldn't allow a male adult to enter a boys toilet on school grounds.
> 
> The reasoning to me is simple; men have urinals, the boys are more exposed. Also as mentioned before the majority of abusers are male. That is a fact. So working on these facts, schools have obviously implemented rules to protect the children as much as possible. Lets all be grateful child abuse has now been made more aware in the world than what my grandparents endured and people are now taking action, not like decades ago. This is a step forward, and if your friend is upset obviously that is his right but he needs to understand WHY it's in place and get past the personal offence he feels. Should there be an equal rule for women? I don't see the real need but for equality's sake, sure. I would have no problem with that.
> 
> ...




I love your robbing the bank comparison. Spot on with that one.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Curious how you would react if you came to you husband about an incident where you felt insulted, and he told you that you were stupid, forbade you to address it and likened your reaction to a temper tantrum.


Keep your curiosity. 

When I feel insulted, I take it up with the person, place or thing that I feel insulted me. I don't run home to hubby like he is my daddy and ask him to organize a march on my behalf. 

I am careful to get it right, to respect authority and to look at the bigger picture. I also need to model principled behavior for my kids so that tempers what I do. My husband is not my satellite and he is not obliged to agree with me as proof of his loyalty and love. 

Finally, I pick my battles because once I get started I don't stop. I need to be sure that I am not being egotistical and that my motives are pure. 

I respect my husband as a person and a man. He would be the first person I would consult about his thoughts. Part of my fight picking would depend strongly on what he feels. 

I don't view him as the enemy male, he has my back and i have his, we are partners, parents and lovers. His feelings and opinions are sometimes more reliable than my own when I am caught up in emotions. I trust his judgement. 

Are you certain that this discussion and the situation described has anything to do with the protection of children or any related issue? Does it not seem like just another serving of male complaints of being treated badly?. 

The world is going nuts and undermining the authority and leadership of men in the eyes of his own children and wife? 

The feminist have loosed themselves among us, they are rending the fabric of family, undercutting the leadership of men in the eyes of his children, and chipping away at what is left of his wife's admiration?

You can let the battle of the sexes play out in your relationship with your wife but I don't with my husband. I have too many distortions about men and it is my personal responsibility to recognize and dispel. 

That would be impossible if I acted out a theme of gender wars within my relationship with the man who has my back. 

This friend appears to want his wife to acknowledge that he is right. Right that his feelings of weakness, powerlessness, and defeat are not due to him but to the ills of society? 

What is their relationship like? Decoding what this is really about is more helpful than encouraging him to view this as being on the losing end of battle of the commodes. At any rate, his wife seems as if she is not going to get sucked in. She is not doing so kindly.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> Keep your curiosity.
> 
> When I feel insulted, I take it up with the person, place or thing that I feel insulted me. I don't run home to hubby like he is my daddy and ask him to organize a march on my behalf.
> 
> ...


So, if you told your husband that you were insulted by someone and were planning on acting on it, it would be perfectly acceptable for your husband to say that you were stupid, that you should not address it and that you were throwing a tantrum?

Based on what you wrote here (and elsewhere) you make my point, because your husband would never do that because he respects you and you would be right ticked off if it did. There is an enourmous difference between talking it through with your spouse and ending up agreeing to disagree, and being disrespectful about your spouses feelings. She does not get to call him stupid and forbid him from addressing it just because she dose not agree. I would not accept that from my wife, you would not accept that from your husband, and I certainly would not counsel someone to accept that from their spouse.

There are two separate and distinct issues I see. One is the application of the policy (which I think we are in general agreement that it is sounder that it be applied equally). The second is the interaction between the husband and wife. I think the husband should expect respectful disagreement from his wife, not being called stupid and being forbidden from sending the letter. That is treating him like a child.


----------



## hisfac (Feb 10, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> There are two separate and distinct issues I see. One is the application of the policy (which I think we are in general agreement that it is sounder that it be applied equally). The second is the interaction between the husband and wife. I think the husband should expect respectful disagreement from his wife, not being called stupid and being forbidden from sending the letter. That is treating him like a child.


I see a third issue, his over reaction to the policy and how he feels like it's directed at him personally and how obsessed he appears to be (or at least was at first) at getting his say in the matter.

As far as the wife's response goes, I don't like the word "should". The wife can do as she pleases, there's no rule or law that says she must respect him or speak to him a certain way however I agree there are some serious issues in the marriage when a wife treats her husband in such a verbally abusive disrespectful manner and I think this guy is spending his efforts in the wrong place. Going on about writing letters and all to the school board insisting women be accompanied to the student bathrooms, while his wife calls him stupid and doesn't have his back is sort of like watering the houseplants while the house is burning down.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

hisfac said:


> I see a third issue, his over reaction to the policy and how he feels like it's directed at him personally and how obsessed he appears to be (or at least was at first) at getting his say in the matter.
> 
> As far as the wife's response goes, I don't like the word "should". The wife can do as she pleases, there's no rule or law that says she must respect him or speak to him a certain way however I agree there are some serious issues in the marriage when a wife treats her husband in such a verbally abusive disrespectful manner and I think this guy is spending his efforts in the wrong place. Going on about writing letters and all to the school board insisting women be accompanied to the student bathrooms, while his wife calls him stupid and doesn't have his back is sort of like watering the houseplants while the house is burning down.


I will agree with all but the "should" part. A good marriage inolves respect - I would go so far as to consider it a rule. Thus, a husband and wife should treat each other with respect. Yes, you can't make either partner do anything they don't want to, but that does not mean they should or should not do certain things. I can't prevent my wife from sleeping with another man, but that does not mean she should do it.

I will also add that the husband may well have handled the situation in front of the principle very poorly (not being there, it is difficult to tell). Even if he did handle it badly, I think it is part of the spouses job to help him work through it to address it calmly and constructively. My wife and I do that for each other and view it as part of being a team. Calling your spouse stupid does not work for me.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

This is one of the most disturbing threads that I have read so far on this forum. 

We have a very very big problem with sexual assault of women and children. 

Yet we fail to protect our kids. Pedophiles get less time in jail than check forgers, they are let out unsupervised to amend again and again. In fact, it is a crime that the perpetrator is almost guaranteed to never suffer the consequences. 

And then to read this 

"you teach by example and this school is teaching its ok to discriminate aginst Men.

political correctness run amuck.

he was not a stranger he was a parrent who need to relieve him self. not like he was wandering the hall if he didn't come back in 10 min tops they would have gone looking for him. he would have to be one fast pedifile to locate a boy durning school hours and a place to molest him.

totally riduculess if that was said to a womem there would be a lawsuit for sure. If it were me I'd call the ACLU and see what my rights were"

and this 
" It saddens me
to see how complacent we have become more and more of our rights are being taken away all in the guise of safety."

I understand why pedophiles run free. The safety of children is much less important that curtailing the freedom of one innocent man. That is why they are let off with light sentiences and allowed access to kids repeatedly. 

There are some men who would rather send their kids out into the world and hope for the best rather than insure that they are protected. They are loath to take a leadership position on this issue and anyone who does is accused of discriminating against them. 

I hope in the future, some brave enlightened person will stand up and put an end to this madness. Make a war on pedophilia and sexual assault like the drug wars. 

There are men who are embarrassed by the deeds of their group and fearful of being targeted. They should know that too much is at stake to ignore the problem. 

The pervs hide in plain sight probably laughing at the foolishness of parents who supply them with kids to abuse and battle each other for the right to throw their kids to the wolves. Horrible.

The stats don't lie. Many women with sexual problems in marriage have been abused as children or assaulted as teens or adults. This is a tremendous problem that is completely swept under the rug. 

The woman who survives abuse is blamed for not being a porn star in the bedroom, not just getting over it. The rage and anger directed at the woman but her abuser not even a word. 

The consequences of the abuse are felt by the innocent and bravest of all. The preditor lives like a pillar of society, god forbid his contribution to the common good be curtailed over his sexual habits. 

Sex is important to a man and no laws are allowed to limit the free expression male sexuality in any form. If we undertake a war on sexual predators then that may be the slippery slope to controlling men - no porn, strip clubs, viagra paid for my tax dollars.... Let it be handled the way it has been for decades by ignoring it.

The tipping point will be that the accumulation of people who have survived abuse will reach a saturation point and they will be the ones to act.


----------



## hisfac (Feb 10, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> I will agree with all but the "should" part. A good marriage inolves respect - I would go so far as to consider it a rule. Thus, a husband and wife should treat each other with respect. Yes, you can't make either partner do anything they don't want to, but that does not mean they should or should not do certain things. I can't prevent my wife from sleeping with another man, but that does not mean she should do it..



Ok I'll agree that one of the rare acceptable uses of the word "should" applies in what can reasonably expected from a relationship partner in a balanced, healthy union.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

Catherine602 said:


> This is one of the most disturbing threads that I have read so far on this forum.
> 
> We have a very very big problem with sexual assault of women and children.
> 
> ...


define big pedofile problem?

and just because they get out of jail early for their heinous crime dosn't mean they can take MY rights as a human being away.


what % of children are molested?

and the children who are molested are usually molested by .......a close family member or friend.

you just want the knee jerk feel good action that really protects noone and take away right of the innocent.

stastically stranger are not the ones who molest FAMILY?CLOSE FRIENDS do much much more so if you want to protect kids at school then stranges having free run of the school would be better than family members.


----------



## chillymorn (Aug 11, 2010)

I'll take my chance of protecting and educating my kids about such things I don't need some emotional women who dosn't use logic and impedes my right helping


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

Tall Average Guy said:


> So, if you told your husband that you were insulted by someone and were planning on acting on it, it would be perfectly acceptable for your husband to say that you were stupid, that you should not address it and that you were throwing a tantrum?
> 
> Based on what you wrote here (and elsewhere) you make my point, because your husband would never do that because he respects you and you would be right ticked off if it did. There is an enourmous difference between talking it through with your spouse and ending up agreeing to disagree, and being disrespectful about your spouses feelings. She does not get to call him stupid and forbid him from addressing it just because she dose not agree. I would not accept that from my wife, you would not accept that from your husband, and I certainly would not counsel someone to accept that from their spouse.
> 
> There are two separate and distinct issues I see. One is the application of the policy (which I think we are in general agreement that it is sounder that it be applied equally). The second is the interaction between the husband and wife. I think the husband should expect respectful disagreement from his wife, not being called stupid and being forbidden from sending the letter. That is treating him like a child.


This does not make any sense.

Maybe I was not clear. If the issue directly involved us as a couple, where I felt I needed his cooperation or that my actions would reflect upon him I would tell him what I felt and what I wanted to do. 

However, I would not expect to just do what I wanted and he should go along. He treats me the same way. I yield on many points because I know he will yield to me if it is important to me. We usually come up with a compromise that favors the person who feels the strongest and does not offend the other. 

I have never been able to bully my husband to agree with me. If I tell him I think he is being sexist he ask me what makes me think that. I have had to hone my reasoning skills and employ emotional intelligence to get him to consider changing his mind about important issues. 

Sometimes he changes his mind sometimes not. I have learned not to assume I know why he feels the way he does, I ask. If this friend thinks that the reason she does not support him is because she is a closet misandrist then he should clear the air and ask her, "do you hate men?"


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

Catherine602 said:


> This does not make any sense.
> 
> Maybe I was not clear. If the issue directly involved us as a couple, where I felt I needed his cooperation or that my actions would reflect upon him I would tell him what I felt and what I wanted to do.
> 
> ...


I actually think we agree on this far more than we disagree (if it all), so perhaps I am not making myself clear. I agree that there is no expectation that one spouse will automatically support the other. I disagree with my wife and she disagrees with me all the time. Be we do it in a respectful manner. When she disagrees, she does not call me stupid or not "forbid" me from doing something. We discuss, we share our reasons, we offer compromises and try to see what works for us. But sometimes, we just need to agree to disagree.

My issue with the wife is the representation that she called her husband stupid for feeling the way he did and forbid him from sending the letter. This is not respectful and would not be tolerated in my marriage. I assume it would not be tolerated in yours either.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

I have to laugh about the forbid thing. I glossed right over that. 

I cannot imagine telling my husband that I forbid him to do something that I disagree with. If I uttered those words we would have a completely different relationship from that moment on. Where it would go, I am not sure. I'll have to say I would not hold out much hope for a happy ending. 

My husband loves his kids and he loves me but I don't think he could continue in a relationship with the me that would be revealed by those words. I would not want to be in a relationship where I felt the meed to forbid my husband to act.

What it says is I don't trust you. My husband is bold and I am not. He has done so many things that I would never have done and that frankly scared me. 

But he can handle it. I have seen that. I trust that what ever mess we get into, we will work our way back out. Even if it is the result of a bad decision by one of us. It has happened on both sides. I am bold with investments,. We learn and we try not to repeat the same mistakes. 

So I do think that her reaction to this is a sign of bigger problems. You can't avoid a bad decision, but if the same ones are repeated then trust is lost. Maybe this comes at a time when their trust for each other is eroded?


----------



## Kobo (May 13, 2010)

chillymorn said:


> define big pedofile problem?
> 
> and just because they get out of jail early for their heinous crime dosn't mean they can take MY rights as a human being away.
> 
> ...




Na, lets just make more rules/laws instead of enforcing the current ones. That seems to work. I've got 2 daughters that have gone through our public school system. I am much more concerned about the 30 seconds from the bus stop to my house than I am the 7 hours they're in school. There is no additional male requirement at our school. ALL parents must report to the office. Sign in and get a badge. Those that haven't received a badge will be escorted back to the office to sign in, male or female. It's pretty disheartening that you are assummed to have a disposition towards pedophilia because you are male. Even worse is how easy people are willing to give up their freedoms. Maybe we should put cameras in the mens bathrooms at the mall next.


----------



## FrankKissel (Nov 14, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> So, if you told your husband that you were insulted by someone and were planning on acting on it, it would be perfectly acceptable for your husband to say that you were stupid, that you should not address it and that you were throwing a tantrum?
> 
> Based on what you wrote here (and elsewhere) you make my point, because your husband would never do that because he respects you and you would be right ticked off if it did. There is an enourmous difference between talking it through with your spouse and ending up agreeing to disagree, and being disrespectful about your spouses feelings. She does not get to call him stupid and forbid him from addressing it just because she dose not agree. I would not accept that from my wife, you would not accept that from your husband, and I certainly would not counsel someone to accept that from their spouse.
> 
> There are two separate and distinct issues I see. One is the application of the policy (which I think we are in general agreement that it is sounder that it be applied equally). The second is the interaction between the husband and wife. I think the husband should expect respectful disagreement from his wife, not being called stupid and being forbidden from sending the letter. That is treating him like a child.


How else does one treat a grown man who has a fit because he can't use the little boys' potty?

I can understand him feeling the rule is applied unfairly. But demanding a change? Writing letters or protest? Engaging in a serious argument with his wife over it? Feeling hurt because she - gasp! - doesn't share his outrage?
Grow the f--- up, man. (Not you, tall guy, the bathroom crusader.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## golfergirl (Dec 8, 2010)

FrankKissel said:


> How else does one treat a grown man who has a fit because he can't use the little boys' potty?
> 
> I can understand him feeling the rule is applied unfairly. But demanding a change? Writing letters or protest? Engaging in a serious argument with his wife over it? Feeling hurt because she - gasp! - doesn't share his outrage?
> Grow the f--- up, man. (Not you, tall guy, the bathroom crusader.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree with you Frank
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## hisfac (Feb 10, 2012)

FrankKissel said:


> How else does one treat a grown man who has a fit because he can't use the little boys' potty?
> 
> I can understand him feeling the rule is applied unfairly. But demanding a change? Writing letters or protest? Engaging in a serious argument with his wife over it? Feeling hurt because she - gasp! - doesn't share his outrage?
> Grow the f--- up, man. (Not you, tall guy, the bathroom crusader.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah I'd say this covers it.

I said it earlier in this thread, the guy obviously has some issues to respond the way he did.

I am not excusing the wife's use of the word "stupid" but I get why she's getting so frustrated and aggravated with him. I can only imagine the discussions she's having with her friends.. they're probably telling her to leave him.


----------



## emb3425 (Aug 21, 2011)

Maybe the issue is only with his wife, and not the gender issue at all? I know some have probably mentioned this already, but if she'd backed him up--at least verbally--then he probably wouldn't care about the bathroom thing. That's just a side issue.


----------



## Accipiter777 (Jul 22, 2011)

chillymorn said:


> I think your mistaken . any instutitution that recieves state local or federal funding is supost ti give access to the general public.


Not so.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

FrankKissel said:


> How else does one treat a grown man who has a fit because he can't use the little boys' potty?
> 
> I can understand him feeling the rule is applied unfairly. But demanding a change? Writing letters or protest? Engaging in a serious argument with his wife over it? Feeling hurt because she - gasp! - doesn't share his outrage?
> Grow the f--- up, man. (Not you, tall guy, the bathroom crusader.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Again, what is the rational basis for applying it to one gender, and not the other? I have yet to read anything that suggests that it makes sense to not treat them equally. What basis is there for the implicit assumption that this is the only gender specific policy? My experience is that those things don't stop at one. 

As for the hurt feelings, I would not accept my wife treating me like a child by calling me stupid for feeling a certain way and forbidding me from doing certain things. I would not tell someone else to accept it either.


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

hisfac said:


> Yeah I'd say this covers it.
> 
> I said it earlier in this thread, the guy obviously has some issues to respond the way he did.


I could not disagree with this more. That he felt insulted does not mean he has issues. Many people feel strongly about issues without having problems. Assuming he has issues comes far to close to dismissing him as a person so that you don't have to address his arguments. 



> I am not excusing the wife's use of the word "stupid" but I get why she's getting so frustrated and aggravated with him. I can only imagine the discussions she's having with her friends.. they're probably telling her to leave him.


So, if the situation were flipped and after his wife telling him about a situation where she felt insulted, he is free to call her stupid and forbid her to do anything like a child? Is that a reasonable stance or marriage? She does not need to agree with him, but to be so disrespectful is not acceptable. I am at a loss as to how anyone can defend that.


----------



## FrankKissel (Nov 14, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Again, what is the rational basis for applying it to one gender, and not the other? I have yet to read anything that suggests that it makes sense to not treat them equally. What basis is there for the implicit assumption that this is the only gender specific policy? My experience is that those things don't stop at one.
> 
> As for the hurt feelings, I would not accept my wife treating me like a child by calling me stupid for feeling a certain way and forbidding me from doing certain things. I would not tell someone else to accept it either.


Neither I, nor most in this thread, are arguing the rule shouldn't be applied equally. In fact, I've made that point at least a couple of times already.

However, a grown, mature man shouldn't get this upset over such a trivial matter. 
I'll say it again - he's having a fit and introducing discord into his marriage all because he couldn't use the little boy's potty. Big. F---in'. Deal.

Life is full of minor inconveniences and things some of us may think unfair. Are you going to go to DEFCON 1 over every single one of them? If you do, you're going to make yourself and everyone around you miserable. Save your time, energy and outage for the things that matter in life. The "right" to walk freely through your kid's school and use the bathroom of your choosing does not qualify for any mature adult.
I'd venture to guess she didn't say he was stupid, she said his acts/behavior was stupid. In which case she'd be correct.

And please, no slippery slope responses.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Tall Average Guy (Jul 26, 2011)

FrankKissel said:


> Neither I, nor most in this thread, are arguing the rule shouldn't be applied equally. In fact, I've made that point at least a couple of times already.
> 
> However, a grown, mature man shouldn't get this upset over such a trivial matter.
> I'll say it again - he's having a fit and introducing discord into his marriage all because he couldn't use the little boy's potty. Big. F---in'. Deal.
> ...


Who said anything about DECON 1? Where does it say that?After thinking about it, the guy wants to write a letter to the school board asking that it be applied equally. The response from his wife was that he was stupid and she forbids him from doing it. So who is really causing the discord?

As I noted previously, my personal experience is that applying policies selectively is rarely limited to one policy. It is not just about the bathrooms, it is about the treatment of one gender differently than the other within the school. To think kids won't pick up on that is naive.

Now since I have tried to stay away from the slippery slope responses, I will ask you to forego the red herring arguments.


----------



## Acorn (Dec 16, 2010)

I just do not understand why, if anyone has a reasonably healthy disdain for child molestation and/or gender bias in society, that they would not fully support changing this rule to fit both genders.

Most offenders are men so the rule is OK. Really? I suppose we'll just let the abusive women have a free pass at the schools until enough of them get caught. And then we'll all feel good about ourselves when we apply the rule to women too.


----------



## emb3425 (Aug 21, 2011)

Acorn said:


> I just do not understand why, if anyone has a reasonably healthy disdain for child molestation and/or gender bias in society, that they would not fully support changing this rule to fit both genders.
> 
> Most offenders are men so the rule is OK. Really? *I suppose we'll just let the abusive women have a free pass at the schools until enough of them get caught.* And then we'll all feel good about ourselves when we apply the rule to women too.


This is a good argument. Also, one could add that there are more women in schools most of the time so this would help level out the risk between male and female perpetrators.


----------



## FrankKissel (Nov 14, 2011)

Tall Average Guy said:


> Who said anything about DECON 1? Where does it say that?After thinking about it, the guy wants to write a letter to the school board asking that it be applied equally. The response from his wife was that he was stupid and she forbids him from doing it. So who is really causing the discord?
> 
> As I noted previously, my personal experience is that applying policies selectively is rarely limited to one policy. It is not just about the bathrooms, it is about the treatment of one gender differently than the other within the school. To think kids won't pick up on that is naive.
> 
> Now since I have tried to stay away from the slippery slope responses, I will ask you to forego the red herring arguments.


Too late. You've already slipped down the slope (i.e. arguing that this is surely just one of many anti-male policies that kids are certain notice ... as if they keep tabs on where adults go whizz).

And if she really is forbidding him - and he's obeying - I'd suspect that their issues go well beyond this dispute.

Anyhow, not too much more to say here.
Best.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

Well I must say that You all have given me much to think about. In fact I do believe I have changed my opinion. I originally sided with my friend because well he is my friend. However now I see that I was wrong.

What has most notably opened my eyes is the point that a male bathroom has mostly urinals and less stalls. This does indeed create for a potentially bad situation. It doesn't matter that my friend was known to school personnel. It doesn't matter that he innocently tried to use the closest restroom. It doesn't matter that he needed to pee, something that is a natural occurrence for anything that is living. He should have gracefully and proudly allowed himself to be escorted to the faculty bathroom. He should have accepted the discrimination as a consequence that he was indeed born into a gender filled with sexual predators and abusers. He should understand that it is for the children's good. MY GOD! Imagine what might have happened if he had mistakenly used the boys bathroom. One of those boys might have seen......a penis. Oh the tragedy that would have occurred then.

In fact this thread has unfortunately uncovered a repressed memory I had from childhood. When I was 7 years old my father took me to a baseball game. During the 7th inning stretch I had to go pee. My father took me to the bathroom. When I entered I was confronted by something that makes me shudder to this day. In front of a row of urinals there were men, holding their penises and urinating. There were penises of all shapes, sizes and colors. I was horrified. I ran screaming from that indecent room and insisted my father take me home immediately. When I got home I made my mother throw out all the popsicles in the freezer. I had nightmares for weeks. For months I had to cross the street when our neighbor took his dachshund for a walk. To this day hot dogs make me uncomfortable. While this memory has been painful to relive it just solidifies how right you all are. Thank you for opening my eyes.

In fact this also has allowed me to change positions on another matter. I now completely disagree with Michelle Hickman. You all remember Michelle Hickman don't you? She was the woman who was told to leave Target because she was breastfeeding in public. Initially I agreed with her stance but now I can see how misguided I was. I thought the excuse she used for exposing her breast was reasonable. I thought since breastfeeding is a natural act that it should be allowed. You all have shown me that just because something is a natural act that doesn't give you the right to expose others to your unmentionable body parts. How selfish of Mrs Hickman to not express her milk earlier in the day so that she could feed her child like normal women. Thank God this Target employee had enough common sense to tell her to stop before something awful happened. What if a man had seen her breast? His shock and disgust might have caused him to walk into something resulting in a tragic accident. What if a male stockboy had seen her breast? He might have been uncontrollably seduced. It could have completely ruined him for life. What if a child had seen her breast? I won't even delineate the horrible possibilities. Makes me sick to my stomach to even think about it. No, it was much better that Mrs. Hickman was told to put her naked breast away and cease her pornographic display.

Now that I think about it, why should we stop at Mrs. Hickman. I have decided to make it my life's work to end all public breastfeeding. From now on I am going to tell every breastfeeding mother to keep her bawdy breast and her baby at home. I am going to make sure that this type of sick erotic display never happens again. I am going to do it for the public who are tired of being forced to endure these salacious situations. Most of all I'm going to do it for the children. I don't want anyone to grow up with the scars I had to live with. Obviously it is too late for me. But I will protect my future grandchildren any way I can. I don't want any of my loved ones to develop a phobia due to exposure to a woman's naked breast. I want them to enjoy cantelope and melons without the fear and dread I have about hot dogs. My mission is clear and I begin it now.


----------



## hisfac (Feb 10, 2012)

Tall Average Guy said:


> So, if the situation were flipped and after his wife telling him about a situation where she felt insulted, he is free to call her stupid and forbid her to do anything like a child? Is that a reasonable stance or marriage? She does not need to agree with him, but to be so disrespectful is not acceptable. I am at a loss as to how anyone can defend that.


Name calling has no place in a healthy relationship whatsoever. I never implied anything other than that. I do get the wife's frustration at the husband's over the top, irrational obsessive behavior at something he seems to be taking way too personally. She's probably questioning whether or not she wants to be with a guy who acts in such an odd way and I'll bet her friends are egging her on to kick him to the curb, she's probably the one saying to them "oh he's really not so bad, this is just one isolated strange incident that doesn't mean anything" while she's probably wondering if that's true and if her husband might in fact have other darker reasons for objecting to the school boards rule. 

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the Op posts another thread, or maybe invites his buddy to the board to post it himself, about how his wife has left him over this.

Of course it wouldn't really just be over this, it was just the final straw that broke the proverbial camel's back.


----------



## 381917 (Dec 15, 2011)

Acorn said:


> I just do not understand why, if anyone has a reasonably healthy disdain for child molestation and/or gender bias in society, that they would not fully support changing this rule to fit both genders.
> 
> Most offenders are men so the rule is OK. Really? I suppose we'll just let the abusive women have a free pass at the schools until enough of them get caught. And then we'll all feel good about ourselves when we apply the rule to women too.


I have never heard of a woman getting caught molesting a child in a restroom. I did a really quick search and couldn't find any news stories about something like that happening. Lots of stories about men doing stuff like that. That is why most people are not worried about a woman abusing their child in a school bathroom. You would consider something that you know has happened many, many times a bigger risk than something that you have never heard of happening, would you not? Of course there are dangerous women in this world, and I've read about them. Their MO's did not involve unknown children in school bathrooms.

But like I said, sure, apply that bathroom rule to both sexes. Mainly to be PC and not offend men.


----------



## Gratitude (Feb 12, 2012)

Beowulf said:


> Well I must say that You all have given me much to think about. In fact I do believe I have changed my opinion. I originally sided with my friend because well he is my friend. However now I see that I was wrong.
> 
> What has most notably opened my eyes is the point that a male bathroom has mostly urinals and less stalls. This does indeed create for a potentially bad situation. It doesn't matter that my friend was known to school personnel. It doesn't matter that he innocently tried to use the closest restroom. It doesn't matter that he needed to pee, something that is a natural occurrence for anything that is living. He should have gracefully and proudly allowed himself to be escorted to the faculty bathroom. He should have accepted the discrimination as a consequence that he was indeed born into a gender filled with sexual predators and abusers. He should understand that it is for the children's good. MY GOD! Imagine what might have happened if he had mistakenly used the boys bathroom. One of those boys might have seen......a penis. Oh the tragedy that would have occurred then.
> 
> In fact this thread has unfortunately uncovered a repressed memory I had from childhood. When I was 7 years old my father took me to a baseball game. During the 7th inning stretch I had to go pee. My father took me to the bathroom. When I entered I was confronted by something that makes me shudder to this day. In front of a row of urinals there were men, holding their penises and urinating. There were penises of all shapes, sizes and colors. I was horrified. I ran screaming from that indecent room and insisted my father take me home immediately. When I got home I made my mother throw out all the popsicles in the freezer. I had nightmares for weeks. For months I had to cross the street when our neighbor took his dachshund for a walk. To this day hot dogs make me uncomfortable. While this memory has been painful to relive it just solidifies how right you all are. Thank you for opening my eyes.


I really don't understand the sarcasm. You asked for opinions and you got them. I see the point you're trying to make here but in doing so it feels like you are making light of the situation. If you were going to back your friend no matter what, why did you come here. 

I find the above in poor taste.


----------



## golfergirl (Dec 8, 2010)

Beowulf said:


> Well I must say that You all have given me much to think about. In fact I do believe I have changed my opinion. I originally sided with my friend because well he is my friend. However now I see that I was wrong.
> 
> What has most notably opened my eyes is the point that a male bathroom has mostly urinals and less stalls. This does indeed create for a potentially bad situation. It doesn't matter that my friend was known to school personnel. It doesn't matter that he innocently tried to use the closest restroom. It doesn't matter that he needed to pee, something that is a natural occurrence for anything that is living. He should have gracefully and proudly allowed himself to be escorted to the faculty bathroom. He should have accepted the discrimination as a consequence that he was indeed born into a gender filled with sexual predators and abusers. He should understand that it is for the children's good. MY GOD! Imagine what might have happened if he had mistakenly used the boys bathroom. One of those boys might have seen......a penis. Oh the tragedy that would have occurred then.
> 
> ...


Are you just feigning ignorance to side with your friend? It's not that these kids might see a 'gasp' penis. A boys washroom is a perfect place for a peeping creep to get his sick jollies oogling a boy's penis. How many peeping Tom's are women? I bet not many or it would have different name than 'Tom'. I was hit on by a creep in a bus depot in the 80's. Guess where they found him? Jerking off in the bathroom. I'd rather risk sensitive souls than have this dude who looked like a sweet grandpa getting his jollies in my kids' school bathroom. 
A teacher at my kids' school got caught video taping his step sons in the bathroom. Why? Because a bathroom is a vulnerable place due to state of undress. 
Seriously what a baby. I guess he can write his letters and make a stand and look like a creep in the process. Time to move on - this discussion is getting ridiculous. Next time maybe consider titling your thread something different, you didn't want any opinions that differ from you and your friend.

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

I posed a question and a problem that I was seeking advice for. Some have all but called my friend a closet pedophile. Does anyone think that someone looking to sexually abuse a child would accompany his wife to a school, sign in, have an hour long meeting with a teacher and a principal and then look to enter a boy's bathroom in order to commit sexual abuse on a student? I fail to understand why anyone has an issue with applying the same rule to visitors that they apply to faculty. I fail to understand why anyone would criticize my friend for wondering the same thing. I fail to understand why anyone cannot see that he was unduly discriminated against not by the rule per se but by the principal who wanted him escorted even though there was no call for it? Many people have completely glossed over the fact that the civil rights that were violated in this case will be the same civil rights applied to the boys in that bathroom when they grow up. Have some perspective people.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

With any person, its so easy to get caught up in the embarrassment of being confronted that we can really dig in our heels on the issue without taking a step back and looking at it with ourself removed from the equation. What I'm talking about is just looking at a similar situation, and how we would respond if we were the one making the rules. Because of my wife's medical problems, I often had to take my children on vacations, theme parks, restaraunts and other places alone. If I needed to send my son into a restroom alone, I would just never be able to do it. Too many scary types out there. With my daughter, not only was I forced to send her in alone if they didn't have family access restrooms, I really wasn't afraid that she would be abused. Sorry, but that's enough for me to support the rule without making it required for women. Yep, its profiling, but if we push the issue to where a government has to really put some thinkin' into it, we'll end up with a $700 billion grant to the Department of Energy for adding TSA security to restrooms across america.

But really, how hard is it for the wife to treat her husband like an adult? If he lacked the testosterone fueled stubbornness common to some men, she'd probably give him the 'I love you but I'm not in love with you speech'. When I got so pissed because my city-provided internet providor wouldn't quit sending me spam, and wrote a java script program to send them 2,000,000 emails a day, telling them to quit sending me spam, my wife treated me like I wasn't really being a stubborn knucklehead about the whole thing. She talked me down.


----------



## Acorn (Dec 16, 2010)

381917 said:


> I have never heard of a woman getting caught molesting a child in a restroom. I did a really quick search and couldn't find any news stories about something like that happening. Lots of stories about men doing stuff like that. That is why most people are not worried about a woman abusing their child in a school bathroom. You would consider something that you know has happened many, many times a bigger risk than something that you have never heard of happening, would you not? Of course there are dangerous women in this world, and I've read about them. Their MO's did not involve unknown children in school bathrooms.
> 
> But like I said, sure, apply that bathroom rule to both sexes. Mainly to be PC and not offend men.


Sexual Assault of Young Children as Reported to Law Enforcement: Victim, Incident, and Offender Characteristics, by Howard N. Snyder, Ph.D.; National Center for Juvenile Justice, July 2000, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs 

The above 2000 statistical report found that female offenders victimized:

12% of victims under the age of 6
6% of victims ages 6 - 12
3% of victims ages 12 - 17

I'm getting that men are by far the biggest offender, but I just don't understand why, instead of instituting a rule that would theoretically help with 94% of the abuse, why you wouldn't want to apply it gender-neutrally and help with 100% of it.

People want to make this into a reverse-discrimination issue, but in this case children are involved and people need to put need to look past the politics. Is there any rational reason not to make it gender neutral? I can't find one.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Beowulf said:


> I posed a question and a problem that I was seeking advice for. Some have all but called my friend a closet pedophile. Does anyone think that someone looking to sexually abuse a child would accompany his wife to a school, sign in, have an hour long meeting with a teacher and a principal and then look to enter a boy's bathroom in order to commit sexual abuse on a student? I fail to understand why anyone has an issue with applying the same rule to visitors that they apply to faculty. I fail to understand why anyone would criticize my friend for wondering the same thing. I fail to understand why anyone cannot see that he was unduly discriminated against not by the rule per se but by the principal who wanted him escorted even though there was no call for it? Many people have completely glossed over the fact that the civil rights that were violated in this case will be the same civil rights applied to the boys in that bathroom when they grow up. Have some perspective people.


Yep. It sure is a crazy world. Can't even smile at a young mother with children in England without some sort of comeback. I gave up a while back, they've become invisible to me. Unless of course they cry out for help, I'd be there then. 


Very different here in Portugal. They always smile back and sometimes they stop and chat for a while.


----------



## Gratitude (Feb 12, 2012)

AFEH said:


> Yep. It sure is a crazy world. Can't even smile at a young mother with children in England without some sort of comeback. I gave up a while back


It is a different world now. It may not be fair on men, or every adult is on guard in certain situations now, but at the end of the day - so what. Child abuse is now made that much more aware to the world and the level of protectiveness has increased. 

If you friend wanted to protest that this rule should apply to women too because he was afraid of women abusers - then sure, that seems fair. But his concern isn't for that - it's because he feels he's being treated like a criminal as a male. His logic may be right, but his motivation isn't. If he had presented it differently to his wife, out of fear of women abusers and to the school, maybe it would be different. 

Most paedophiles are men. So the rule makes sense. I can not believe any man would start an equality debate on that one.


----------



## Catherine602 (Oct 14, 2010)

The fact that it is the hot button issue of child abuse, diverts the discussion away from what is going on in their relationship and the implications.

He obviously feels strongly about this and his wife does not. they explored why they had divergent feelings. The reasons on both sides seem reasonable. 

I agree with him that the rule should extend to women and I think her concern about the effects on the kids and the impact of the parents standing in the community.

The things he wants to do is expending a great deal of political capital when there are other ways of accomplishing the same goal discretely. 

What he is really asking is for his wife to support him because he feels that the rule demeans him. He wants her to acknowledge his feelings. 

They have both handled this very poorly. She refuses to honor his feelings and goes so far as to treat him with contempt. He refuses to acknowledge her concerns and modulate the way he goes about reaching his stated goal. 

The contempt is one of the deadly relationship sins and a good predictor of divorce in the future, according to studies. 

So this is not a happy couple, they seemed that way on the surface, up till now.


----------



## golfergirl (Dec 8, 2010)

I guess my issue is how upset he is over it and the scene he is willing to make. I understand being miffed in passing or even making a snarky comment to escort - but the level he's taking it. Why? Yes I've been followed by mall security. Oh my! They're calling me a thief! I've been flagged for extra special airport pat downs. I'm a terrorist! It was annoying, kind of insulting and a little embarrassing. But in the grand scheme of life - big hairy deal. If it keeps prices down and air travel safer - I'll suck it up. For the record, I've never stole a thing in my life and I doubt I'm a threat traveling with my toddler and infant.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

It’s the hysterical, persecutory and indiscriminant nature of it all.


Recently in England a young child wouldn’t go back into school after play. The teacher phoned the child’s parent but she couldn’t get to the school to help out. So the teacher with a helper took the child under his arms and carried him into school. The teacher was sacked!!!! This led to her working as a cleaner for a year. I’m pleased to say she’s just won her case of unfair dismissal.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

I think that maybe the biggest problem that your friend has is that she DID accuse him of being a paedophile. In communication about 20% is in the words used, the vast majority is in the body language used.


So in body language she may well have said “You are a paedophile! If you want to use the WC you will be escorted!!!”.


This would sound about right if she is one of those who is hysterical, persecutory and indiscriminant as far as men are concerned. Thing is we don’t know. Only he knows how he interpreted what she said to him.



As for a wife who doesn’t give him emotional support I don’t reckon the marriage will run for very long once he’s cottoned on that his feelings are of no importance, no consequence to his wife. In a way the guy is invisible to his wife. That’s how a spouse feels when their partner not only ignores but seriously devalues their feelings, their emotions. If he’s not careful he may well have an identity crisis.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

AFEH said:


> I think that maybe the biggest problem that your friend has is that she DID accuse him of being a paedophile. In communication about 20% is in the words used, the vast majority is in the body language used.
> 
> 
> So in body language she may well have said “You are a paedophile! If you want to use the WC you will be escorted!!!”.
> ...


I think you have described it well. His initial reaction may have been surprise that the rule was gender specific. After all, in today's world the cry against discrimination is so loud one wouldn't think that a school would have a rule that was gender specific. I think his anger arose when the principal insisted he be escorted. His wife failed to acknowledge his feelings even when he finally decided to let the principal's behavior go and write a simple letter to the superintendent asking the rule be applied like an extension of the faculty policy. His wife still refused to understand him, support him and even allow him to deal with it and move on. I agree there are issues in their marriage obviously that I (and maybe my friend) didn't know existed.

I am troubled that so many jumped to the conclusion that my friend was hiding some ulterior motive. He is no more a closet pedophile than Michelle Hickman is an exhibitionist. The purpose of my earlier post was to call out the ridiculousness of jumping from A to B to WTF. Golfergirl's post talking about being followed by mall security was interesting. I would ask if she were approached by mall security and outright told that she looked like a thief and she was going to be escorted throughout the mall, through every store and even into the restroom would she have stayed in the mall? If she knew she would be escorted every time she went to that mall would she ever go back there? I think my friend not arguing and simply leaving was about the best way he could have handled that situation. I think he was correct that the principal overstepped the rule and her bounds by demanding he have an escort. I think my friend had a right to be upset. After he calmed down he decided that pursuing a grudge against the principal was not worth his time. However, he felt the rule should be applied to both genders as it was to both genders of the faculty. A simple letter and he could have put it all behind him. Obviously his wife felt that her demand that he not make waves in the school system was more important than her obligation to make peace with her husband. In his mind this is a betrayal and they will have to deal with that.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Sounds like he may well have been both publicly falsely accused AND betrayed. For a man of integrity it doesn’t get much worse than that.


There are reasons why at times we feel great discomfort inside of us. I think men are typically really crap at listening to and interpreting their emotions. How did they arise? Where did they come from? What are they telling us?


And most of all when we’ve found those things out (if ever) what should we do about it?


Emotional support (or lack of it) is massive in a marriage. In many ways how we respond to these types of things, how we emotionally as opposed to rationally respond, defines the very person we are. It defines our very absolute uniqueness as a person.


Going by his wife's response I’d say that in essence she is telling him “I do not like you!”. At least not at that particular point in time!




I do think he needs better coping skills when faced with these types of situations. If the woman really did think he was a paedophile and he isn’t then she is obviously wrong about him. In fact she was deluded. In that she believed something which is not true (which is an insanity, a serious mental disorder).


In situations like these what I say is something like “You are deluded if you think I am a “whatever””. And I just leave it at that. Woe betide them if they ever take their false accusations even the tiniest step forward.


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

AFEH said:


> Sounds like he may well have been both publicly falsely accused AND betrayed. For a man of integrity it doesn’t get much worse than that.
> 
> 
> There are reasons why at times we feel great discomfort inside of us. I think men are typically really crap at listening to and interpreting their emotions. How did they arise? Where did they come from? What are they telling us?
> ...


What is often missing in the responses is how important the tone is when a person is called out like the OP's friend. I've dealt with office personnel in three states, and since they are used to dealing with parents of worst case scenarios from unruly children, I doubt that the office employee put on her happy face, or even considered a tactful way of delivering the message. Sorry, but that tends to be the nature of schools. Last time I registered my son, I got scolded because I didn't follow the markings on the floor .... when I was the only one in the line, and I didn't even need to see the people I avoided during the registration process. You want tact, you don't go to your kid's school or the department of motor vehicles. 

Yes, he probably needs work on his coping skills, but you are right in your comments, in my opinion. Also, his wife could've been supportive while still helping him let it go. If he didn't do the same thing for her once and a while, he would be told that he is insensitive and selfish.


----------



## golfergirl (Dec 8, 2010)

Halien said:


> What is often missing in the responses is how important the tone is when a person is called out like the OP's friend. I've dealt with office personnel in three states, and since they are used to dealing with parents of worst case scenarios from unruly children, I doubt that the office employee put on her happy face, or even considered a tactful way of delivering the message. Sorry, but that tends to be the nature of schools. Last time I registered my son, I got scolded because I didn't follow the markings on the floor .... when I was the only one in the line, and I didn't even need to see the people I avoided during the registration process. You want tact, you don't go to your kid's school or the department of motor vehicles.
> 
> Yes, he probably needs work on his coping skills, but you are right in your comments, in my opinion. Also, his wife could've been supportive while still helping him let it go. If he didn't do the same thing for her once and a while, he would be told that he is insensitive and selfish.


I guess none of us being there, we (including friend) can each put our own spin on things.
Was he escorted because it was other side of school and principal was busy so she found someone to do it, and made a lame joke (I'll get Bill here to show you so you don't get lost) or did she glare at him and truly accuse him?
Yes that is a stretch, but we will never know. Everyone spins a story somewhat to support their stance.

My H coached my teenage daughter's soccer team. He couldn't be in dressing room without a woman present and a woman had to be present on the bench on the field at all times. Boys teams with female coaches were fine with females only. Rather than cry foul, my H followed rules and appreciated the protection of never having an opportunity of being accused for something he didn't do.

Re: mall security analogy, it depends. If I was doing something I shouldn't and broke some rule and not getting escorted through mall in handcuffs was in my control, I would go back.

A lot depends on his marital history too. My H is easily offended if someone stares at him too long in public. He has been known to get aggressive and snarl, 'WTF you looking at!' And other similar inappropriate comments. If he expects my support under such an 'infraction' against him, it's not happening. To the outside, I'm an unsupportive wife. To the inside, he takes offense far too easily and if he chooses to embarrass himself by jumping all over a starnger, he'll do it without an 'atta boy' from me.
Maybe that's a dynamic in the marriage you don't see. Maybe he's always complaining about some injustice and his wife is 'whatever!'
If it's exactly as he reported, he should have made his disapproval known off the start. Sometimes someone just has to 'shake off' dealings with an 'asshat' and have the self-confidence to not let it define them nor cause loss of sleep.

Is the principal an asshat? Sounds like it, but your friend has the opportunity to not be in that situation again. Just pee before attending school events and problem taken care of.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Halien said:


> What is often missing in the responses is how important the tone is when a person is called out like the OP's friend. I've dealt with office personnel in three states, and since they are used to dealing with parents of worst case scenarios from unruly children, I doubt that the office employee put on her happy face, or even considered a tactful way of delivering the message. Sorry, but that tends to be the nature of schools. Last time I registered my son, I got scolded because I didn't follow the markings on the floor .... when I was the only one in the line, and I didn't even need to see the people I avoided during the registration process. You want tact, you don't go to your kid's school or the department of motor vehicles.
> 
> Yes, he probably needs work on his coping skills, but you are right in your comments, in my opinion. Also, his wife could've been supportive while still helping him let it go. If he didn't do the same thing for her once and a while, he would be told that he is insensitive and selfish.


I’ve become fascinated with body language. The most significant thing I’ve learnt to date is that as a language, body language has words, sentences and paragraphs! I’ve just learnt that the human face is capable of 250,000 different expressions. Well I haven’t learnt that as I find it impossible to believe, so I’ll need further proof. But when we were at the grunting stage, body language (and grunts) were the only means we had of communicating, so maybe there’s some truth in it.

It would be interesting to watch a video from the time the guy stepped into the office until he left, with the volume turned right the way down.


As you know, a lot of life is about handling situations like that. It’s why I like the Buddhist’s “instant forgiveness”. It’s designed to take the sting out of altercations like this such that we can see what’s behind it. “You insinuate that I’m a paedophile?. Ok I forgive you for that. Now what’s behind it all?”.


In essence the guy’s ego was hurt, sounds like it was even bruised. But he let it happen to himself! Which means he probably has very poor boundaries and poor ego defence mechanisms.

He shouldn’t have let the woman get to him so very easily! And in that he has much to learn about personal boundaries and ego defence mechanisms. Which in a way is good because he can become a better version of himself as time goes by.



And I believe in these things, this “growing and maturing” is where his wife is supposed to help him grow! But instead she prefers to further antagonise him.


----------



## Beowulf (Dec 7, 2011)

golfergirl said:


> I guess none of us being there, we (including friend) can each put our own spin on things.
> Was he escorted because it was other side of school and principal was busy so she found someone to do it, and made a lame joke (I'll get Bill here to show you so you don't get lost) or did she glare at him and truly accuse him?
> Yes that is a stretch, but we will never know. Everyone spins a story somewhat to support their stance.
> 
> ...


From what my friend said the principal was not joking at all. She was serious and he felt very strongly that she doesn't like or trust men. The fact that she insisted on having him escorted probably demonstrates this I would think. Deciding to leave rather than have a confrontation was probably a wise move. I'm sure telling him to just pee before school events seems like a reasonable solution just like telling Michelle Hickman to express her milk before shopping at Target seems like a reasonable solution as well. But where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and unreasonable restrictions on civil liberties masquerading as protection of the public good or safety of the children?


----------



## Halien (Feb 20, 2011)

Beowulf said:


> From what my friend said the principal was not joking at all. She was serious and he felt very strongly that she doesn't like or trust men. The fact that she insisted on having him escorted probably demonstrates this I would think. Deciding to leave rather than have a confrontation was probably a wise move. I'm sure telling him to just pee before school events seems like a reasonable solution just like telling Michelle Hickman to express her milk before shopping at Target seems like a reasonable solution as well. But where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and unreasonable restrictions on civil liberties masquerading as protection of the public good or safety of the children?


If the principle received any legitimate training in conflict avoidance, which is a very simple skill that is still taught in many places, the situation would have been handled in a way that only the most immature of taxpayers, or "customers", would have responded as the OPs friend did. There's no rocket science involved. There are a number of interesting resources published about the changes in the way that some public service employees relate to the parents and the public. In the past, if a member of the public was offended, the default stance was that the person presenting the issue did it poorly. Now, the default stance tends to be that the man or woman customer receiving the instruction responded poorly. I know it is likely paraphrasing, but if the principle actually said, "As a parent, YOU should understand," that principle would receive coaching where I work. In this example, the principle could say "As a result of the actions of others, WE have been forced to initiate a number of policies that are uncomfortable to us all, but I am in no way a suggesting that you have done anything wrong."

As it is, he received a policy-neutral instruction as policy-critical. Its just pointless that the hurt feelings were even a real possibility.

I'm going way overboard on this, but it should be second nature for a person with a principle's credentials to handle such a situation in a common sense way. She obviously did not. His only blame is just responding immaturely.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Beowulf said:


> From what my friend said the principal was not joking at all. She was serious and he felt very strongly that she doesn't like or trust men. The fact that she insisted on having him escorted probably demonstrates this I would think. Deciding to leave rather than have a confrontation was probably a wise move. I'm sure telling him to just pee before school events seems like a reasonable solution just like telling Michelle Hickman to express her milk before shopping at Target seems like a reasonable solution as well. But where do we draw the line between personal responsibility and unreasonable restrictions on civil liberties masquerading as protection of the public good or safety of the children?


But surely the onus is on him to learn how to handle women like that! And from that point of view he can use this experience as a case study. It will be to do with his boundaries (he lets people right inside him way too easily) and ego defence mechanisms.


From the bigger picture perspective, I’m of the mind to think that things have gone way over the top! There’s a craziness around. But I’m also of the mind that it will get a great deal worse before it starts getting better.


----------



## AFEH (May 18, 2010)

Halien said:


> If the principle received any legitimate training in conflict avoidance, which is a very simple skill that is still taught in many places, the situation would have been handled in a way that only the most immature of taxpayers, or "customers", would have responded as the OPs friend did. There's no rocket science involved. There are a number of interesting resources published about the changes in the way that some public service employees relate to the parents and the public. In the past, if a member of the public was offended, the default stance was that the person presenting the issue did it poorly. Now, the default stance tends to be that the man or woman customer receiving the instruction responded poorly. I know it is likely paraphrasing, but if the principle actually said, "As a parent, YOU should understand," that principle would receive coaching where I work. In this example, the principle could say "As a result of the actions of others, WE have been forced to initiate a number of policies that are uncomfortable to us all, but I am in no way a suggesting that you have done anything wrong."
> 
> As it is, he received a policy-neutral instruction as policy-critical. Its just pointless that the hurt feelings were even a real possibility.
> 
> I'm going way overboard on this, but it should be second nature for a person with a principle's credentials to handle such a situation in a common sense way. She obviously did not. His only blame is just responding immaturely.


She probably enjoyed it!


----------



## norajane (Feb 7, 2012)

Beowulf said:


> His wife failed to acknowledge his feelings even when he *finally *decided to let the principal's behavior go and write a simple letter to the superintendent asking the rule be applied like an extension of the faculty policy. His wife still refused to understand him, support him and even allow him to deal with it and move on. I agree there are issues in their marriage obviously that I (and maybe my friend) didn't know existed.
> 
> I think my friend had a right to be upset. *After he calmed down* he decided that pursuing a grudge against the principal was not worth his time. However, he felt the rule should be applied to both genders as it was to both genders of the faculty. A simple letter and he could have put it all behind him. Obviously his wife felt that her demand that he not make waves in the school system was more important than her obligation to make peace with her husband. In his mind this is a betrayal and they will have to deal with that.


I wouldn't jump to conclusions about their marriage or about his wife.

However long it took for him to "calm down" and give up his "grudge against the principal" and to "finally" decide to write a letter, his wife had to go 'round and 'round with him. You don't know how angry and blustery and stomping mad he became during that time. You don't know what he said to her, how he said it, or anything but what he told you her reactions were. He wouldn't be the first person to mistake "this grudge against the principal is stupid" for "YOU are stupid" in the heat of the moment.

By the time he finally calmed down to consider the situation more rationally, I can see how his wife would just want to drop the whole thing.

Just saying, there are two sides to every story, and we aren't in a position to judge


----------

