Male nannies/childminders

Oh, and can you tell me how many potential Muslim suicide bombers there are please? Unless you work for Mossad/CIA/MI6, how do you come by this information?

So then, if I understand you correctly, all we need to do is move Muslim passengers to another seat?

No it is not an equivalent. I have said I have no issue with men working with children or men being hired to work on planes.

And you do knopw suicide bombers are incredibly rare while men who sexually abuse children are not?

How about this as an equivalent?

What about if a plane company refused to hire Muslims due to the majority of suicide bombers being Muslim? Would that be an acceptable way to reduce the risk?

No you know I wouldnt support that - but it is not equivalent. The equivalent would be if I was arguing that men should not be allowed onto planes or there should be men only planes. And I have not argued that position at all.

I would also love to understand the position of Eats and those who agree with her re the allowing of people with brown/dark skin onto aircraft. The majority of Muslims have brown/dark skin, and most suicide bombers are Muslims. Would they recommend segregation, e.g whites-only aircraft? Or even banning them from planes, as they can still hijack them and fly them into buildings.

This point was raised earlier, but as usual seems to have been skipped over. Is it too difficult? I don't expect an answer, but I will give you another opportunity to answer the question - just in case you missed it first time around.

I think it's FAR more important to assess risks based on evidence and in the context rather than relying on assumptions which can lull us into a false sense of security and place children at greater risk of harm in the end.

My brother used to be the equivalent of a county councillor in the US and on the education committee. There was an awful incident where a female gym teacher was suspected of sexually abusing girls, and was convicted on two counts in the end. Quite rightly, citizens were outraged by the crime and breach of trust, but many were also very bigoted. The education committee was heavily lobbied to ban the employment of Lesbian and gay teachers because they posed a risk to children. That would have been illegal and despite some councillors also wanting this, it didn't happen. What my brother pushed for was more robust systems for screening teachers before appointment, ongoing monitoring and procedures to reduce the risk of any adult in the school being able to harm children in their care - not just in relation to sexual abuse either.

And, in my view, that's what needs to be continually reviewed and improved with respect of all professions and all settings working with children and vulnerable adults. Assess and minimise the actual risks. Basing policy and practice on fear runs the risk of excluding the wrong people and placing children at greater risk by letting folks through because they "look the part."

As for the airplane situation, why on earth if the airline had a policy on not seating unaccompanied minors next to single men did they put a child next to a man in the first place? Furthermore, surely it was their responsibility to move the child and not ask the man to move. They wouldn't have needed to explain why they were being moved, no fingers of blame would have been pointed and all would have been tickity boo.

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.

Why is encouraging more men into childcare an important way to fight male domination?

And a really important way to fight the patriarchy in this context is to encourage more men into childcare, both paid and in a sahm context.

That's my issue with it, empusa.

How do we challenge the patriarchy? What, on an individual or group level? Which particular aspects of the patriarchy? Impossible question for 8.30am when I haven't had my second cup of tea and boot camp starts in 30 minutes.

We all do what we can on an individual level.

I'm pretty sure that viewing each and every male as a suspected paedophile doesn't come into it, though, ergo you are derailing.

So do you think men should be involved in the childcare of young children? Say in a nursery?

Because logically asking men not to work there would be a sensible precaution, wouldn't it?

And I'm sure the man would not be offended.

No it is about putting children first

"It is ultimately about wanting women and men to be treated as human beings."

And yet this thread seems to be about treating all women as human beings and all men as paedophiles.

No its not about wanting to subdue men, but it is not about equality either. It is ultimately about wanting women and men to be treated as human beings.

The reason it is not about equality is because women and men have different needs. At a basic level women need maternity care to recover from child birth, support to breastfeed, etc. Most peopel use equality to mean that everyone should be treated the same.

Feminism is about womens liberation - womens liberation from being a second status sex and freedom from male domination.

Toa chieve this as feminists we do need to put women and children first. Otherwise we just end up focusing on mens needs all of the time.

Delurking for one last scream....

Is Feminism really about putting women and children first rather than men?

Because I (am admittedly not as educated as I'd like to be on the subject), thought it was about the promotion of equality. And wanting all adults to be treated with same dignity and respect. Given the same opportunities, privileges and pay. Not aiming to subdue men but instead to raise women.

So how do you think we challenge patriarchy madwoman? Or do you think we should patriarchy at all?

I dunno, eats, I rarely go to fwr after all the boring hoo ha. No idea, was just going by whoever was it unthread and know you used to always be there if I rolled by.

Yar, it is a feminist position, but not one that looks at the wider implications.

It just goes back to battles or wars. I'm a bigger picture person, which is why I find some of the smaller detail stuff hard to swallow if you look at the ramifications.

Like many other debates on fwr, if you stop demonising a specific group and work towards greater understanding and mutual action, you'd have a lot more success.

I use 'you' in the wider sense, not directly, and not even targeted at fwr. 'we' would probably have been a better term.

I' m not particularly invested in this barney, other than to be mildly irritated that it's these sort of attitudes that are the very backbone of patriarchy. Which I find ironic when they are peddled by a 'feminist'.

"because I'd quite like to see a society where childcare is happily and equally provided by both sexes before I die, for equal and adequate pay, or as a family choice. Thus ending the 'women's work' stuff for good."

Actually the position I am taking is a feminist one. Because fundamentally being a feminist is about putting children and women first rather than men. And this position does that. Allowing unaccompanied children to sit next to adult men in planes though, is putting men's needs first.

I used to be a proloific poster but left for 2-3? months and now post much more occasionally.

That Pedro

Not sure who Pedro is, but apparently he is quite a tricksy chap.

Well, apparently someone unthread looks up to you as a prolific poster (which I find interesting in itself as a reinvention, lol)

I just felt it necessary to keep pointing out that it's not a feminist viewpoint. And really, you are just an echo of mainstream Pedro hysteria backed by a few stats in a feminist vein. Just in case anyone drifting by assumed you were speaking for a feminist majority, and all.

Let's hope you're not that important, frankly, because I'd quite like to see a society where childcare is happily and equally provided by both sexes before I die, for equal and adequate pay, or as a family choice. Thus ending the 'women's work' stuff for good.

I didnt know I was that powerful madwoman!

Yep. And on here, eats is inducing a culture of fear and mistrust.

It is frankly horrific.

I can't get my head around why feminists who are supposed to be working towards social change are so busily stacking up and defending existing and harmful stereotypes.

And I think the stuff with exotic is taking away from the real danger of maintaining and reinforcing that status quo.