[Sex/gender incident] He covers his eyes, but reveals that society is taking the path of least resistance.

Since I'm missing that one, it's rightfully considered a lack of aggression.

Written on the morning of March 14, 2022

Some time ago, I worked as a dormitory parent assistant in a school for mentally handicapped. The work content was inseparable from taking care of children's daily life, bathing and changing clothes.

Both male and female staff can bathe boys, but girls can only be bathed by female staff. It might seem normal at first glance, after all, the usual caregivers are women.

About a week after I started working, a girl was peeing her pants in the classroom. When I found out, she had already started to take off her outer pants and underwear because she felt uncomfortable. It was also the first time for me to face such a situation, and I raised my head and asked, "How should I deal with it? Should I just go back like this?"

The male staff member far away blocked his eyes with his palm, and said, "Tell her to wear it back before going back to the room to change it." The girl took it off because she felt uncomfortable when she got wet, so how could she put on her wet pants again. Then a female staff member went to the room to get the towel and pants and came back. I asked the female staff member, "Should I wrap it up like this? Or put on a new one first?" She replied "Put it on first", while the male staff member was still holding on to the trousers. The one who covered his eyes asked, "Are you ready?"

I'm deep with this clip.

What is profound is not the performance of the mentally handicapped person, but the reaction of the male employee.

I can understand "see no evil" and "male caregivers should avoid suspicion to avoid being suspected of raping vulnerable people (especially in the field of mentally handicapped people)", the male staff needs to strongly express his doubts about "the difference between men and women" and "sexual violence "Having a high level of awareness, not having a little prying eyes, and respecting the boundaries of the body, I understand all of these.

But what I don't understand is, why am I considered harmless as a "female"?

It doesn't matter whether the children are boys, girls, 6 years old or 16 years old, I can bathe them, but the male staff can only bathe boys. Could it be that if a male employee has that one, he will violate all women indiscriminately? Am I missing that one so I can't use fingers or implements to abuse children?

of course not. It's just that society always deals with all problems in the way of least resistance for the sake of management.

The deep-rooted idea that "only men can rape" is manifested in Hong Kong's laws, because men only have penises. The law describing rape has only been amended to "penetrative sexual assault" in recent years. But for the convenience of management, it’s still the same. When a woman is a caregiver, no matter whether you have experience or not, you are tacitly allowed to touch the body of the care receiver, because you can’t put the penis on the other person to perform obscene acts, so You can bathe the care receiver, and everything seems so natural.

Whether it will violate others will not be different because of gender, but comes from cognition and awareness.

I have the ability to recognize and judge. Anyone who is naked in front of me does not mean that the other party welcomes me for sexual activities. I believe that there are many male caregivers or male staff who have the ability to judge, so when they hear the situation of the girls, they will first confirm that the girls are dressed appropriately before intervening. They are very conscious, right?

It is so profound because this small incident reveals that social operations are always taking the path of least resistance.

: People are impulsive, especially men, even if they have the ability to recognize and judge, it is better to cut off their contact with vulnerable women, otherwise who will be blamed if something happens?

This is society's mistrust of men.

: Girls should not be curious about sex since they were young, so they won't touch others. Girls won't be so slutty and just ride on it. Girls will not have a big problem helping boys take a bath.

This is society's sexual repression of women.

: Do we need to use the caregiver's "cognition/judgment" to deal with it? That's too troublesome, and a bunch of certifications have to be processed. What if a male employee still sexually assaults others? Let the women take care of it.

There are also male gynecologists, so there is no problem in the "professional field", but if the entire society is not distinguished by gender, but by different abilities, it will be too exhausting.

 Or use a simple dichotomy.

So—girls are feminine, girls are non-aggressive, boys are masculine, and boys are aggressive—just manage two groups of people, and use traits to regulate this group of human beings, so that society will work.

"That's the path of least resistance."

—

I couldn't fall asleep late at night, and a few fragments kept lingering in my head, and I wrote them down to see if I could fall asleep. Write this first, tonight's segment is particularly strong.

—

The photo, I just took.