While I agree about the lack of supporting evidence for her claims, nothing in the article suggested to me that she isn't concerned about pedophiles, nor do I t

While I agree about the lack of supporting evidence for her claims, nothing in the article suggested to me that she isn't concerned about pedophiles, nor do I think this article was really near a gray area at all. >Of course it's stupid to label all men as possible predators, but there's another side to it: when a single pedophile can damage literally hundreds of children, who wouldn't have cause for concern? Concern about pedophiles isn't the other side to this. It's related in so far as our concern about pedophiles has turned into a concern about men in general. The only way it could be the other side would be if the majority of pedophiles are men (probably true) AND if a significant amount of men are pedophiles (I don't think I need to cite any references to say this is absolutely false). It's pretty easy to have concern about pedophiles without having concern about men working with children. In fact, we already have systems in place for this - all teachers are screened before they are hired, for example.