What people don't discuss or even realize is the complete hypocrisy of it all. Remember the time a British Airways (i think) male passenger was made to move because there was a kid next to him? Doesn't anyone find it strange that its perfectly fine to separate kids from men UNLESS its what they wanted?
The circumstances are obviously different but the pervasive way of thinking that men can't be trusted is what contributed to that tragedy. You'd think that people are almost hardwired to help someone else when its a life or death situation. It just can't be out in the open of why what would be considered common sense now has to be second-guessed.
It seems to me that men who like to be near kids are vilified and men that DON'T are vilified also. It can't be a man's choice if he wants to be with or near kids at all, he just has to accept what is decided for him. You can easily find articles about men trying to gain custody of their kids and are rebuffed, even if the mother is unfit and/or men having to pay child support to kids they never wanted.
This guy's quote says it all:
Absolute bulls_t. The safety of a child is more important than your fears. Man up and take your chances with the social pressures you're expressing.
It's more important take action and hope that "reason will prevail" among a jury of peers if you must make a choice like the English bricklayer had to make. If the cost of saving a child's life is 5 or 10 years in prison I will choose action over CYA every time.
That quote signifies exactly what this is all about. Its telling men "yes, you are dangerous to children and you won't be trusted but you BETTER be willing to risk your lives for them!" They tell us the same thing with dealing with women too. No matter how bad women think of men, men had better do what it takes to look good to them. No, their opinion of the "ugly male" won't change but you better try anyway. Its like running on a sociological hamster wheel!