Talk me through this - male on placement with brownies

[nevernotstruggling]

The dds have been to the same brownie unit for around 4 years (dd1 waiting to move up to guides). I know the leaders quite well and there has been one staff changeover in that time. The communication with parents has been excellent. I have felt safe letting the dds go on sleepovers knowing that I know all the adults involved. It's actually been brilliant in terms of safeguarding. No surprises or anything parents haven't been informed of. The dds love it. Dd2 is thriving there because it's a small closed group where she feels safe and familiar.

I dropped the dds off this week and a man came up to dd1 touches her shoulder and said 'you're it' I said to brown owl - who is that?? She replied oh it's Dave (not his name obvs). Me - who is Dave??? BO - he's on work placement (something about youth work) . Me - Er is he DBS checked?? BO- yes. Me- Brownies is a girls group!! BO - we have dads helping! No they don't. Not once the whole time we have attended.

Apparently Dave will be there for 4 weeks.

My reaction has been negative. I'm quite annoyed there was no warning of Dave jointing the unit. There have never been 'work placements' before. I think it was be something to do with the church though.

I think parents should have been told. They use a private Facebook group to keep in touch with parents and this works really well so I'm a bit baffled by the surprise!

a regular dropper-in-and-out like a caretaker can also be a chancer as it's an ideal opportunity to get to know children without oversight.

That's quite possible, but as a group just hiring a hall, you're not in a position to dictate that the caretaker has a DBS check for the sake of spending 5 minutes opening up and another 5 minutes closing. You can certainly make sure he's never left alone with the girls (he wasn't) and that he doesn't "hang around" without good reason (he didn't).

“saw male worker unexpectedly and thought shit this is going to impact Dd, why didn’t they tell us.”. But obviously that gets in the way of an opportunity to fly off on a hunt the sexist crusade.

But why would they tell you, if their publicised policy states that they have both female and male helpers and then a helper who falls into one of those advised categories arrives?

I’m trying to think of a similar situation sausage from RL what about at soft play they have emergency exits. Last summer it got very hot. Some bright spark propped one at the back open and put a broom handle across the gap. Luckily I saw it. My thoughts were probably something like “ shit this is going to impact DS why didn’t they tell us. Because we go there regularly and if I had sat down and let him go alone there would have been a disaster. Nobody was unreasonable to let some air in or to expect there not to be a random new exit. I asked why it was done and how we could compromise. I doubt anyone was hurt or upset, because, you know, we wanted the kids to be happy doing what they came for.

WeBuilt if you had enrolled your child in a football club and found that they were now playing hockey, or in a club for children who were carers for a sibling but other children were coming, would you say the same?

I don't quite get the first question, as it seems to relate to the activities being done rather than the people there. If I had a child who went to a football club and it changed (whether officially or by stealth) to a hockey club, I'd ask if it was a one-off to introduce a bit of variation or a permanent change. Then, I'd ask my child if they enjoyed the hockey and wanted to stay, and either leave them at the hockey club or quit and find another club where they still played football.

As for the second question, I think I would raise it with the leaders, to ask if/why the object of the club had changed. It would also depend on whether it was a club clearly set up to support, provide respite and maybe shelter such children in their vulnerabilities or just to provide a fun club which was specifically arranged so that children in that situation would be enabled to attend. As I said, I would raise it if a boy - i.e. a child - joined a club that's only for girls, but leaders/helpers are a separate issue entirely. I wouldn't expect the leaders of a club for child-carers to necessarily also be carers for their own siblings - just to understand the dynamics and be supportive. In the same way as I wouldn't expect an oncologist to have cancer in order to be able to properly and sensitively treat those who do.

I’m trying to think of a similar situation sausage from RL what about at soft play they have emergency exits. Last summer it got very hot. Some bright spark propped one at the back open and put a broom handle across the gap. Luckily I saw it. My thoughts were probably something like “ shit this is going to impact DS why didn’t they tell us. Because we go there regularly and if I had sat down and let him go alone there would have been a disaster.

But a door left open where young children could run through it and escape or get hurt is an obvious serious hazard, same as an open fire or sharp knives left lying around on the floor. If they couldn't neutralise the hazard, they should indeed have warned you.

How is simply being a man - one of the four standard types of human - an automatic danger requiring urgent remedial action, though?

Would you panic if the usual red door, which is left safely closed, had been painted overnight and was now a safely-closed blue door doing the same job? Surely that's a better analogy?

5zeds

Thats not a comparable situation.

Girl guides allow men to volunteer. Its not a secret. Unless op had asked BO to advose her beforehand about any male visiitors then she is being unreasonable.

5zeds You are equating a male being present to a hazard being present, which is precisely the stance I (and others, I think) am taking issue with.

How is simply being a man - one of the four standard types of human - an automatic danger requiring urgent remedial action, though?

Exactly! That's what some don't seem to be grasping.
You can't compare a man to a wedged shut door (obvious risk!) FFS lol

It’s expecting one situation and it being different. I should have explained the door open WASN’T a problem for the other clients because it was obviously blocked iyswim, but that’s not ok for us because Ds doesn’t understand that sort of thing. I’m sorry I didn’t mean the entire population of the soft play needed help.

Ds has a friend who has a hideous balloon phobia. His mum obviously doesn’t walk around shouting, “no balloons”, but sometimes they do pop up in unexpected places. They deal with it.

I spend a fair amount of time making people comfortable about having my large, loud and totally harmless young man around them or their children. We are often startling, unexpected and for some slightly worrying. It’s ok. We can talk to each other. Share understanding and expectations. OP should ask, and be given reassurance if she’s uncomfortable. Nobody is made less by that.

Soooo the unit have now posted a statement about Dave with some other details/justification which is even more weird but also very outing if I post them here so that's the end of the line in terms of updates x

So long as you and Dd can find a way that keeps you both happy, no harm is done. I love that her needs are so central to your thinking OP, she’s a lucky little girl.

OP should ask, and be given reassurance if she’s uncomfortable

It's the fact he's male that she's uncomfortable though, and nothing that he's actually done.
That's what people are taking issue with.
That he's a safeguarding risk and parents should be told if a man helps out.
It's sexist as hell. Should we all go back to our roles then? Women as the carers, men to do more manly things (whatever the fuck they are?) Hammer dry walls, building or whatever? Don't teach the kids?
Er, no.
Equality my bum some of the attitudes on here are just.... archaic shall we say.

I dropped DD at rainbows tonight. Sitting beside one of our well known leaders was a man on a laptop. I didn't think anything of it until I overheard her introduce him to my dd on my way out the door, she told her it was her husband and he was here because one of the other leaders couldn't be, so basically there to make up adult numbers. Our rainbows is really struggling for helpers so I am just grateful this man has stepped up so the session could go ahead

Yeah, the mum with the child with the balloon phobia is just plain Baloonist too. It’s shocking how she thinks she’s in a balloon free situation and one pops up and she has the audacity to ask what it’s doing there, and if it’s a permanent fixture. Fuck me she should be ashamed.

It’s shocking how she thinks she’s in a balloon free situation and one pops up and she has the audacity to ask what it’s doing there, and if it’s a permanent fixture. Fuck me she should be ashamed

How is that even comparable though? A balloon is an inate object, you can reasonably stay away from them.
You're talking about staying away from half the population because of a phobia, and that's not the same.
That'll severely restrict your child in day to day life if you don't let them go anywhere in case there's a man helping out or nearby.
It's prejudiced.

@willis why do we have sex segregation at all? Why do Guides risk assess men differently from women? Why have a girl only group? Surely these are all sexist? Or is it sexist that almost all abusers are male, and all rapists are male? Hmm.

Why is that weird? It’s what you wanted to kick up a fuss and it all run by you Clearly your witch hunt worked. If you had checked the site you would have seen male volunteers are part of brownies. Frankly as a parent I’d have been livid re the spreading of such a bat shit phobia and behaviour which will probably put off many volunteers.

Yes, she should be ashamed, if she's let her child into an environment which states in its policy that balloons may be present. Poor parental awareness, I'd say. Not the balloon's fault.

Poor Dave. He's been Donald Trump, a gnu, and now he's a balloon.

Volunteers are checked for all types of child abuse which women definitely do sadly engage in. Treating women as less of a safeguarding risk is wrong.

So little compassion for this child.

They shouldn't have been bullied into prljblic announcements. Zero need. Never once in many years of scouts and guiding attendance have any pack needed to warn parents of new helpers. If op needs special treatment it should have been done privately.

Oh for goodness sake she wanted to conduct a witch hunt about an evil man- somebody’s son getting of his arse and actually doing something for his community.

Have I missed a post where the OP has said that her daughter has special requirements regarding the presence of men, and that she'd told the group organisers this?

So little compassion for this child.

How is it possibly showing compassion by being determined to drive 50% of the potential adult helping/supervising pool away with a pitchfork - which will undoubtedly lead to sessions and even entire groups being cancelled and the children missing out when the female helpers are sick, away or too busy or, as it increasingly sounds, not actually stepping forward and volunteering themselves?

The famous quote is actually paraphrased as "Be the change you want to see" and not "Leave it to others if you cant be bothered, but still feel free to complain that they're somehow doing it wrongly".

If the girl in question has a genuine fear of men because of what's happened to her in her life, then I'm very sorry for her and hope she gets all the help she needs. However, she simply cannot be insulated from the presence of males for the rest of her life.

I'm not a psychologist, but wouldn't this provide a classic opportunity to gradually introduce the feared object/person in a safe, familiar environment (i.e. a single DBS-checked man surrounded by a number of known and trusted, more experienced women, who are actually in charge of him)?

The flipside of (irrationally) refusing to trust or allow men to play their part in society is that it then ALL falls to women. The bad men have the excuse that "well, she wouldn't trust me to do it anyway" and the good men get beaten down and patronised until they end up thinking the same.

We end up with women doing everything around the home, everything involving the children, often a busy full-time job as well - absolutely out of their minds with exhaustion. Meanwhile, the men helpfully keep out of her way and play on their X-Boxes for hours on end. It's not his fault, though - even though he might have initially shown willing, he's simply too much of threat and/or incapable of doing it anyway....