Male nannies/childminders

I think that I will have to go with equalist. I find it irritating that I could have 17 yr old twins and the DD could earn money babysitting and the DS couldn't. Luckily I had friends who did pay my DS as a babysitter.

The majority of the attitudes on this thread is that men should be nannies and sit next to lone children on flights and that those who have a problem with that because of pedophiles are fearmongers.

Quite exotic

pan I'd much rather call myself an Equalist. That's the one thing this world really needs.

It is going to stay a female role with the attitudes on this thread.

One of the reasons why there are so few men in childcare and primary school teaching, but childcare in particular, is ecause of the low pay. We pay people more to look after our cars tan our children.

Ch

Looking after children, a traditionally female role, is massively undervalued.

Empusa - your comment re 'equality' and feminism is pretty much why I have never self-identified as a feminist, tho' subscribing to most principles, and being in support of feminism over the years. In a 'questionnaire' posted by someone ( I forget who) recently I was assessed as an 'equalist'. Which this thread makes me happily think I was properly assessed!

yes I DID mean to say at the end "none of them would subscribe to this view, and it has no effect in RL." Quite an omission.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Tue 11-Sep-12 15:45:04
I am fine with men working with young children, but I am also fine with mothers who do not want their young children to be looked after by men.

Bizarre.

Appalling.

What a bigoted, trashy thing to say.

Compare with:

"I'm fine with employing women, but there is a much higher rate of women leaving work when they have kids, than men when their partners have kids. I'm fine with companies that don't want to employ women".

Well re Eats 'representing' the feminist POV, thankfully she doesn't. It would appear she represents herself and nothing more. It;s a view that 'represents', possibly, some feminists on a social website. Of all the feminists I know, work with, and post with round here, it has no effect in RL.

You find eats position ludicrous. Not the feminist position.

(I am assuming you are referring to eats pov as 'the' feminist one, as she espoused it that way herself)

Incorrectly.

Zippey, as chickens said, eats doesn't represent 'the' feminist position. That's the point I've been making.

I am a feminist.

I believe in equality.

I believe that men and women should share childcare 50/50, both paid and as sahp.

Please don't make the mistake of believing that eats speaks for all feminists.

Eats doesn't represent 'the' feminist position. Just her own opinion. Feminists don't speak with one voice on many, many issues.

Because fundamentally being a feminist is about putting children and women first rather than men

But who comes first, women or children? Should we give women the right to choose to have a male babysitter if they are potensially putting their child at risk?

On a positive note though, I am glad to see the overwhelming opinion is that in finding the feminist position ludicrous. I understand that that the concerns are well meaning but you could say the same about a well meaning racist. Feminists will say most rapists and abusers are men. Racists will say most terrorists are Islamic or media/government are Jewish or Blacks commit most gun crime/dont do well in IQ tests. Two sides of the same coin really. They damage their cause by being so extreme in their views.

Definitely equal parenting with the woman not being the 'superior' parent.

Because fundamentally being a feminist is about putting children and women first rather than men

Not to me. It means equality. Men taking equal share of the child care and men being able to do all jobs. (and the same for women).

Quite. Equal parenting. Not 'what the mother wants'.

You don't really need me to explain that equal division of childcare by sex would go a long way to dismantling gendered barriers in every conceivable social situation, including employment (not just in childcare professions but across the board, in terms of removing (cultural) barriers to employment of women of child bearing age (if that is their wont), do you, eats? Meaning a huge change in government policies wrt employment and pensions etc?

Why is it an important way to fight male domination?

I mean, you could rewrite wifework, for a start, just in terms of gendered expectations.

It's the removal of expectations about a gendered divide.

But we've been round this buoy before on fwr. Parental care is an emotive topic, particularly when separation is involved, and the current status quo to leave the children with the mother is largely predicated on her being the primary carer. To change this status quo in favour of equal parenting is an alarming proposition if you only pay lip service to equality.

Absolutely Empusa. Thank you for bringing some sanity to this thread.

I can only identify with a feminism that strives for equality. And I am also intelligent enough to know that equal does not always mean the same. Women don't have to become 'like men' to become treated as equal.

The NHS treats all people equally (for example), it does not treat us all for cancer if we haven't got cancer.

Oh and I also dispute that only women are able to put children first. Why aren't their fathers making choices about child are in eats analogies?

Have to say, this thread does explain why so few people are willing to call themselves feminists. More people can see the value in striving for equality.

Risk

I think it is wrong to assume that all men in these jobs are capable of being peadophiles, surely and unfortunetly woman nannies bear the same rich.
Has everyone forgotten the lastest spate of women peadophiles ?

Every man & woman in job positions such as these should be treated as equals.
Male midwifes, although a different thread altogether i have found to be really helpful.
Prejudice is long gone with the dark ages, lets not bring it back!!

When do male children become not priority?

I assume 18?

What we see here is a flawed position taken by people who have read radical literature and taken it as gospel, rather than thinking it through for themselves. A bit like fundamentalist religion really, which is ironic considering the turn that the thread has taken.

If you are true to yourself *EatsBrains" surely you would advocate men never working with children, as there is a risk that they will abuse children. Yet earlier on you said "I am fine with men working with young children, but I am also fine with mothers who do not want their young children to be looked after by men." Surely that would be putting children at risk?

This position is flawed as is the feminist movement if it is not about equality but the advancement of women in place of men. Women have been and still are treated badly by society but two wrongs dont make a right.

Wasn't a muslim man at the centre of a hoo haa on a plane a few years back? The other passengers refused to travel with him or something?

The problem with making it about children, women and men, is that approximately half the children grow up to be men. How do we put women and children first, and then turn around to half the children at some magical age and say 'Now, you, over to the other side. And if you decide to work with children, it's absolutely ok for us to look at you with suspicion. Don't get upset about it, your feelings aren't as important as they used to be when you were below the magical age.'