Would you consider a male nanny?

Dublin - if you want a male nanny - go right ahead. Not my choice tho, but I respect your decision. Shame you can't respect mine................

I have just spent the last while reading this thread from the start, and to be honest, I'm shocked. This is only my second thread to contribute to on Mumsnet, but I feel compelled to on this occasion.

So many generations of women have had to fight for rights: voting, equality in the workplace, equal pay (still an issue) amongst many others. It sickens me that we as women who have fought so long and hard against sexism and narrow-mindedness would then turn around and carry out the same injustices, and then worse - try to excuse our behaviour. My son is 6 months old and loves spending time with my dp, 3 brothers, 2 grandads, godfather and my male friends from home. I would not dream of denying them this pleasure because they are men and "all men are abusers". I'm sorry but that is just pure and utter bullshit.

Earlybird, do what is best for your daughter, whether that means hiring a male nanny or female nanny. As parents we have all carried out checks on anyone caring for our child and of course, any doubts - don't go there. But to dismiss someone on the basis of gender is fundamentally flawed and bigotted beyond belief.

TTT and any other male carers out there, not all of us think you are pervs waiting to pounce. I can only imagine how much you all must love your jobs to put up with such an amount of suspicion and I applaud the strength of character it must take to continue - your charges are very lucky.

I would because my husband is usually working away or too tired or has a headache

It's a shame what happened to undercovermum's friends' child. Things like this should not happen to anyone. However, her point is vague - are we supposed to not trust male carers, men in general, openly homosexual men, or what? I worry that the logical progression for some people here is "he was gay, and therefore a paedophile" which is a common logical fallacy people propagate. If someone is sexually molesting children they are not gay OR straight - they are paedophiles. If undercovermum's story had concerned a straight male that abused a child, would that have been pointed out? Would it have read "My sister & I trusted her new male friend for years(he was openly straight)...." if that were the case? Somehow I doubt it, but I could be (and hope I am) wrong.

Martini, you could always... I dunno... read the link? Novel idea.

My point was that as "women are more likely to be the main carers of children" (ahem), is being used as an excuse for why women (apparently) neglect more often than men, but that should NOT carry over logically into "women are more likely to be the main carers of children, and are therefore more likely to physically abuse their children statistically" because it was not a "study of abused children" but rather a study of children, which asked if they had ben physically abused. It's hard for me to make this point clear, so I apologize if it sounds like gibberish, but trust me, it -does- make sense.

Honestly, I imagine any skewing of the statistics on neglect OR violence is minimal for the same above reason, but I was trying to make a different point at the time.

BTW, it's a good study - using the Conflict Tactics Scale developed by Straus, which still pretty much sets the standard for investigating every sory of physical or domestic abuse.

I'd like to take issue with TTT statement "

However, violent treatment as in the link provided by Dizietsma should not be skewed in the same fashion, and yet mothers offend more often"

Was it specifically adjusted to take account of the fact that women are more likely to be the main carers of children? If men are not present in a child's life they can't be violent to them.

Maybe you could point me to the section in the report where it shows this as I haven't got time to read it all.

I'd like to take issue with TTT statement "

However, violent treatment as in the link provided by Dizietsma should not be skewed in the same fashion, and yet mothers offend more often"

Was it specifically adjusted to take account of the fact that women are more likely to be the main carers of children? If men are not present in a child's life they can't be violent to them.

Maybe you could point me to the section in the report where it shows this as I haven't got time to read it all.

I'd like to take issue with TTT statement "

However, violent treatment as in the link provided by Dizietsma should not be skewed in the same fashion, and yet mothers offend more often"

Was it specifically adjusted to take account of the fact that women are more likely to be the main carers of children? If men are not present in a child's life they can't be violent to them.

Maybe you could point me to the section in the report where it shows this as I haven't got time to read it all.

A lesson in what undercovermum? What happened to your nephew is horrendous and very very but all it shows is that that one man shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children, it doesn't mean that every man you think you can trust with your children will abuse them.
This mentality of all men are potential peadophiles is ridiculous, a tiny percentage of men are peadophiles and there are many many men out there that are absolutely wonderful in a childcare role. I can actually say that looking at my own family and friends that the men are generally better with the children! ( I have a sneaking suspicion thats its because they don't want to grow up, and like to get involved in all the games! lol) but seriously in my direct experience, the men I know who are around children, either fathers or those that have children in their close family tend to have more patience, are more willing to get their hands dirty and really get involved with playing with the kids.
It makes me really sad that there arn't more men in childcare roles, and If I was looking for a nanny I would definitely consider a man, I might even be slightly more inclined to employ a man, having done all the checks etc etc, as I am a single mum and my dd doesn't have very much contact with her dad.

My sister & I trusted her new male friend for years(he was openly gay). He still managed to abuse her little boy under our eyes. She only found out by her little boy saying 'mum, I don't want to be gay anymore'. Let that be a lesson to anyone out there. Everyone was taken in by this beast.

Earlybird,

While I understand (although don't agree with) your concerns re hiring a male nanny as I have a daughter, I find your statement "I don't feel like breaking barriers/fighting sexism when dd's wellbeing is involved" offensive. I'm sure the male nanny concerned would want you to hire him IF he was the best person for the job, but wouldn't want you to feel worthy for having done so. To dismiss him without having met him purely on the basis of his sex is both sexist and not potentially in the best interests of your daughter, as you may be missing out on a really good nanny.

Your concerns and those of others in this thread seem to me an emotional - rather than a thought-out and logical - reaction. The argument that paedophiles are often known to the child applies (sadly) as equally to male relations as it does to male nannies. One of my friends was sexually abused by her grandfather, another by her godfather. In both cases the girls' parents didn't have a clue, despite knowing the men well. Sorry if this shocks people, but my point is that paeodophiles are a very small part of the male population and there is no way that we can or should stop our daughters from interracting with men. What we can do is to listen to our instincts re people, teach our daughters what is and isn't appropriate behaviour and to share any worries they have with us, and to carry out thorough checks re childminders (regardless of their sex).

You made a very good argument, Earlybird, in favour of potentially hiring a man. That is, your child needs a male influence. I would think that when hiring a nanny you would want someone who complements your parenting, and that may be for example providing a male perspective. What I find even more offensive than your statement above is someone (or various people) on this board stating they couldn't understand why men would want to look after children. I know a bodyguard to a famous person who told me the best job he ever had was working as a nursery school assistant in Japan. He had to give it up due to his visa, but he said it was fantastic having kids so pleased to see you every day and watching them learn. This is a guy who is six feet five and is a trained martial arts expert. My husband constantly says he wishes he could look after our baby daughter full-time as she is so much fun and he loves her so much.

The male nanny may be fantastic and a good fit or he may not; just like a female nanny. His sex shouldn't be relevent to whether he can do the job properly. I have been surprised since having my baby at how my friends and relatives act with her. A very close female GP friend of mine who spends a lot of time with her nephews has shown no common sense or patience whatsoever when dealing with my daughter. My childless and much younger brother and brother-in-law however are both fantastic, protective and responsible with her.

My advice would be to meet the male nanny, preferably brining someone with you for their opinion. If you like him, introduce him to your daughter to see whether she feels comfortable with him. Then do your checks. Good luck.

Enid - I've been lurking on and off, and felt that as a male carer, it was important to add my two cents. I usually contribute to a forum where posts veer towards the wordy, rather than opting for brevity, so my apologies if I tend to whitter on a bit.

I don't doubt that prevalence of female over male carers skews the statistics on neglect somewhat - it would be good to see a report specifically controlled for such factors. However, violent treatment as in the link provided by Dizietsma should not be skewed in the same fashion, and yet mothers offend more often.

My point, by the way, is not that "women are worse" or that "men are better" with children. My point is that gender is not really a factor in your ability to care for children, rather it is mostly a non-issue as socialization and upbringing seem to be the true determiners of ability to care, so denying a carer on the basis of gender is pointless.

I feel like the language in your post really gets to the crux of the matter: the common bias that "women are the carers in the first place" and that "you [ie, men] can't neglect if you don't have anything to do with the care in the first place." I think the bias in those words speaks volumes more than anything I could say.

madmarchhare - I should point out that I never said anyone was "WRONG" if they had these biases. I said that people who immediately responded "no" to the idea of a male carer should maybe consider what this says about them, because it says -nothing- about male carers. Having a bias or prejudice is not "WRONG". We -all- have areas where we are blinded by passion or ingrained response. But I think these blind spots need to be challenged and recognized, in others as well as myself.

I used that term ignorant, in it's original sense of "uninformed", because statistically abuse is not really confined to one sex, and basing a life-altering decision on the chromosomes of your applicants seems silly, at best.

I'm not here to attack anyone on the basis of their biases, but here to challenge these biases, because I am VERY aware of them as a man in childcare. Still, I wouldn't give it up for the world, because being a carer is the most rewarding job I've ever had, hands-down.

Thanks to everyone here who would judge a carer individually - need more PARENTS like you in my workplace!

Hopefully I've added something of substance to this thread, and not just the ravings of a disordered mind!

I just thought I'd add that part of the reason I (and probably others too) had an initial negative reaction to the idea of a male nanny is because it's unconventional so the idea surprised me a bit (silly, I know).

My first reaction before I had thought about it was to worry about a male nanny.

However, when I thought about it, I realised that it's not because I believe that male nannies are a risk but that I feel irrationally protective of my DD - probably way beyond what is really necessary. I worry that if anyone did abuse her in any way, it would be my fault as I should be able to prevent it (in anyway I can). It's the stories of kids being abused by family and friends that ruins it for us all. Their parents were obviously confident that these people could be trusted. This coupled with being taught to be wary of men from an early age, by our equally paranoid parents, makes everyone doubt their instincts, the very things we are supposed to use to protect ourselves.

I'm really glad I've read this thread as it's something I hadn't thought about in any detail before and I'm surprised at my own sexist reaction. I think I would consider the person (male or female) rather than the sex first and person later. It's also made me realise how difficult life must be for males in this profession and how because of this, you're more likely to be getting someone who is good at and really wants to do this sort of job - why would they put up with the predjudice otherwise?

Thanks, I am genuinely interested, my question wasnt meant to be inflammatory.

Hmm, well, for starters, the 2000 NSPCC report on child maltreatment found that 49% of violent treatment of children in the home occurred at the hands of mothers, fathers abusing only 40%. I suggest you read a book called "When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence" (here's the amazon page) for a more in depth discussion of the statistics. It certainly opened my eyes.

I think it's interesting how resistant our culture is to contenancing women's violence, particularly women's sexual violence. Perhaps when we leave behind our outdated sexist stereotypes we'll be able to accept such realities.

I think its great that thats your opinion TTT.

Oh, and by the way there is nothing WRONG with my psychological make up, neither am I deluded, sexist or ignorant.

Upon what statistics do you base your clainm that women are more likely to neglect a child ?

Thank god for TTTs post. If I felt that my friends thought it was ok for me to look after my own DS but not their DD and/or DS (for whom I'm godfather incidentally) I'd be bloody offended.

The usual knee jerk reaction that men who want to care for kids are "odd" flies in the face of what most of us have been striving to get past. It's another form of male stereotyping which if positions reversed (!) would have most MNetters screaming "sexist!". Sadly I often find if I'm affectionate to my son (giving him hugs and kissing him in public) it's the men who look at me like I'm in the wrong, wife does it it's ok. So I can't say I'm surprised by some of the reactions here, though I expected better.

Earlybird your original cocnern may be exactly the same with leaving your kid with anyone for the first time. God knows when DS went to his child carer for the first day DW and I spent most of the day watching the clock waiting to go get him back. No reason to doubt child carer she was great and we felt very happy with her, but you worry whenever they're out your sight.

As with TTTs comments perhaps if people feel queasy with the idea of a man looking after their kids they should take a long hard look in the mirror at your own prejudices.

E

I wouldn't make a decision based only upon gender, just upon the individual. The only way to go would be to carry out thorough checks, which you would do anyway, regardless of gender.

Nurseries seem great, as with more staff, the impact of any one of them having a bad day is lessened in theory (show me someone who doesn't have a bad day once in a while!).

But....in practice, you only need one 'bad apple' to sour the nursery experience - as ds1 found. 'Our' bad apple made no secret of the fact SHE detested him, and his behaviour deteriorated dreadfully. Luckily SHE didn't last long and left as I was on the verge of removing him.

At least if you can afford a Nanny, you are chosing EXACTLY who looks after your child. Whether male or female is irrelevant, as long as they check out okay and 'fit' with your family.

And this comes from someone who was abused as a child, and would certainly take no chances with her ds's

Definitely. Would love my children to have more male input in their lives. Dd has a male carer at her nursery and I was so pleased to that the nursery had a guy working there.
As far as I'm concerned the more men are involved in child rearing the better. Have no issue whatsoever with a male aupair or nanny bathing my ds or dd. What are we saying here that all blokes are potentially perverts?

sorry but it is bollocks that women are more likely to neglect a child than men. If that is true its only because women are the carers in the first place - you can't neglect if you don't have anything to do with the care in the first place.

wow thats a wordy post for your first one Tomtitot, have you been lurking all this time or are you a name change?

Being a new father that works in a childcare setting, I am disappointed but unsurprised by the uninformed and absurdly sexist opinions held by some parents that have responded here. The ingrained, socialized sexism concerning men in childcare never fails to rear it's ugly head when the topic is presented, often followed by protestations of "I'm not sexist, but..." or "It's just an emotional thing." Obviously, nobody should be expected to employ someone to watch their children that made them incomfortable, but saying that you would never employ a male carer is as ignorant as any other form of discrimination.

By the same token, could a corporation refuse to employ women in their accounts department, as women have lesser numeracy skills (supposedly, according to studies)? Of course not, and any corporation that did so would be rightfully labelled discriminatory.

Also, I am amazed by how many people seem to be under the delusion that women cannot sexually abuse children. Studies show anywhere from 25-35% of childhood sexual abuse is suffered at the hands of a female abuser. Childhood neglect is almost FOUR times more likely to be perpetrated by a woman. Women abuse. It happens. I wish it didn't, but denying it won't make it go away - being informed will.

Let's get facts straight before displaying our ignorance, bare-faced.

I also find the idea that men are programmed to "dump seed and run" deeply offensive and based on the worst, most unfounded assertions of evolutionary psychology. These are scientists still tied to the savannah theory of evolution, folks. They're backwards. I understand that the nature of lactation and pregnancy tends to make people believe that women are "natural" carers, but that is just biology - psychologically, as statistics show, women are actually more likely to neglect a child than men. Evolutionary psychology seems quaint in light of our modern reality, where it becomes more and more clear that the differences between the sexes don't extend far beyond physiology, the rest being socialized. My grandfather, for example, raised two girls while his wife drank and was rarely at home, spending no time caring for her children.

Maybe we ought to consider what knee-jerk anti-male responses say about US and OUR psychological makeup, because it doesn't say a thing about male carers, except perhaps to cast light on how difficult a job they have.

As a personal aside, one of the best carers I have ever had the privilege of working with was male, and my boss, who has been in childcare for almost 20 years, agrees with me that he was one of the best workers she has employed.

I would

I would

Message withdrawn