[Newsbot]

<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="/link.php?id=29874" target="_blank">Identity of abandoned baby still a mystery</a> (click to view)

<strong>Category:</strong> <a href="/news/topic/14-misc-cdn" target="_blank">Misc CDN</a>
<strong>Posted By: </strong> <a href="/modules.php?name=Your_Account&op=userinfo&username=Hyack" target="_blank">Hyack</a>
<strong>Date: </strong> 2008-02-04 10:47:03
<strong>Canadian</strong>

[hurley_108]

"There is also indication that she is somewhat frightened of males, and so that would lead us to believe that whoever inflicted [this] abuse on her is likely a male," Rivard told CBC News.

---

I'm not saying that the abuser isn't a man, but this is the most idiotic piece of "reasoning" I've ever heard. My daughter was absolutely terrified of her grandfather at eight months, to the point of screaming if she saw him. He'd never treated her with anything but the gentlest care whenever he'd held her up to then.

In general, there are evolutionary reasons for babies to be afraid of unrelated males. Males don't want other males' kids around preventing the women from having their kids, so they kill them. Lions are famous for doing this.

There is absolutely no way to extrapolate an "indication that she is somewhat frightened of males" into anything, the alone a likelihood a male abused her. This is rampant irresponsible speculation.