Quote:
In any case, doing a male/female convict comparison test is logically not relevant to determining how rational it is to be cautious of males but not females. If you want to know whether A is a risk in and of itself, you don't ask what the risk of B is, and compare the two. You need to know the risk of A itself, absolutely. For example, you don't say "I'm not going to swim in pool A because it's 10x dirtier than pool B" when pool A has only 10 sand grains and B has one sand grain in it. If you don't swim in the pool, it's because it's too dirty absolutely, not in comparison to some other pool. Or you don't say "I'm not going to bother driving safely in town because it's 10x more likely that I die on the freeway than in town." (just making up numbers here)
|
In terms of absolute numbers:
There are 86 registered male sex offenders in my zip code. There is one female.
I don't see any need to discriminate at this point between child molesters and other sex offenders, because it's perfectly reasonable not to want anyone who's ever been convicted of any sex crime around children, and I certainly don't want them around me.
If I see a person I don't recognize around the group of kids playing on the playground equipment in the courtyard of my condo complex, I'm going to take note of that, keep an eye on him or her, and probably introduce myself and ask a couple of friendly questions. If it's someone who belongs there, say a new resident, or a cousin or uncle, I've just met a new neighbor. If it's someone who doesn't belong there, I've made it known to him or her that he or she is being watched. I've had three people take off as I was walking up to them as they watched the kids playing.
I do this regardless of the sex of the person, because I don't see any reason for someone who doesn't live here, regardless of sex, to be on our playground.
But I also stand by my belief, based on the evidence, that it's a reasonable reaction to be more suspicious of men than of women, especially when it comes to stranger abductions.