Though I agree that the woman in question does sound crazy, and I'm sure her little girl will grow up to be a miserable excuse for a human being (based simply on statistical likelihood if nothing else), I wanted to take a moment and posit the following, which may render the mother's apparent craziness more sensible (I find I'm forced to do this sort of thing on an almost hourly basis... If I don't find some way to explain away batshit-crazy behavior, I fear I might develop mild misanthropic tendencies... thereby depriving society of one of its most compassionate and altruistic souls):

It could well be that the woman's angry response to her child had nothing to do with a genuine suspicion of you and your motives, but was instead determined by what she saw as inappropriate disobedience on the part of her child. If she had previously told the little girl "don't ever take candy from strangers unless I specifically tell you that you can," then it would make sense for her to be upset when the little girl accepted candy from you... not because the mother suspected that you might be dangerous, but because the incident illustrated that in certain circumstances the little girl would, indeed, accept candy from strangers.

That would, I'm sure, be a frightening thing for a parent to contemplate. Sure, you weren't threatening... In this case the little girl made the right decision. But does her mother really want her to ever make that decision? No. She wants her to just assume that she should never take candy from strangers, no matter what. It's safer that way.

If I were to purchase a huge, vicious pit bull for purposes of home protection, and train the dog to maul anyone who came into my home without me, I would be very put out with the animal were I to come home and find it curled up on the couch, watching TV with one of my old college buddies who happened to stop by and let himself in. Yes, yes... the dog made the right decision in this case (as did the little girl in accepting your candy), but neither the dog nor the little girl are supposed to be making decisions of this caliber. They're just supposed to do what they've been trained to do.

Also, what the heck were you trying to give candy to a little kid for anyway? If I tried that shit, I'd get thrown in jail for harrassment or assault or attempted kidnapping or something... Since she was a little girl, someone would probably toss in a sexual assault charge too.

That was facetious, but if you'll permit me a moment of seriousness I would like to point out that for all the apparent inequality in the world, women don't know how lucky they are in certain regards.

I'm not saying that I would want to trade places, nor am I claiming that this is sufficient compensation for centuries of discrimination and social injustice... but it must be nice to be allowed to initiate polite interaction with perfect strangers.

I would never dare. Honestly. Offer candy to a child on any day other than Halloween? I won't do more than politely nod to a child I haven't been introduced to... and even that will only be as I'm hurrying past without slowing down or showing undue interest.

I will sometimes offer that same polite nod to women I pass on the street, but more often than that I avert my eyes and move to the far edge of the sidewalk as we pass, so that I don't appear unduly threatening.

You think this is silly? Then you probably aren't a man. You probably haven't ever twisted awkwardly to the side to avoid brushing shoulders with a pretty young woman in a crowded room because you know "brushing up against someone" constitutes sexual harrassment according to your company's written code of employee conduct. You probably haven't ever denied yourself the pleasure of zoning out and staring off into space in a classroom because the University's definition of harrassment includes "staring at someone for more than several seconds."

I've done those things. You have to as a man... you don't have much choice anymore. Masculinity is a package deal nowadays. It comes with a penis, an automatic victimizer stigma, and your choice of either a hyper-sensitive awareness of other people's potential discomfort with you, or the possibility of being branded as an active victimizer (responsible for the mistreatment of a specific woman instead of carrying a portion of the general responsibility for the mistreatment of womankind as a whole).

So, in truth panther, I find myself amazed not only at your willingness to offer candy to a child, but also at your indignation at being treated as a potential threat. I am not amazed because you are wrong in your assessment of how ridiculous the situation is... far from it. You are in the right, and we both know it.

What I'm amazed at is the simple reminder that there are still people out there who have the luxury of not having their behavior censured by default... that there are people out there who are not assumed to be child molestors and rapists until they prove otherwise.

Enjoy it, and take pride in it. It truly is a luxury, and it is one that not everyone is fortunate enough to share.