Would you have a male nanny?

[ShirleyPhallus]

DH and I are talking about this and neither of us would feel 100% comfortable about it but we can’t really articulate why.

Have you ever employed the services of a male nanny? Would you?

Yes.

@Kinneddar

can you even have sexism against men

Ffs you have to be kidding 🙄

Well, there is the argument that you can't be racist against white people because white people have the privilege. The same argument could be made about sexism and men.

@powershowerforanhour

No. Primary school teacher, nursery worker, paediatrician- fine. Nanny/childminder- not for me. Not all men are paedos, but nearly all paedos are men and jobs with unsupervised access to potential victims have got to be a magnet for them as well as those with pure, kind noble caring instincts...and crucially, my radar is not good enough to reliably tell the difference. Somebody good at grooming parents could probably fool me reasonably easily and the stakes are too high.

yes. exactly. it is not sexism. it is who bears the risk, or harm from the risk, if any harm should happen. cannot be compared with risk of an incompetent/ weak-wristed female plumber. i can choose to take a risk with my own house, job, life even. but small child has no power to exercise choice or judgment. so i feel i must err on the side of caution. it's not worth the risk.

Does that go for females in the police force or fire service too? Are you dead against women being allowed into these jobs?

Less strength and speed to intervene physically to protect or rescue your children from a burning building or from would-be attackers? Not worth the risk, eh?

Would you strongly discourage your son from wanting to join a profession caring for children or the elderly or vulnerable when he grows up? Artificially limit his life and career options because of his sex? Make sure you steer him away from the dolls and toy kitchens at nursery, just in case?

I presume you must similarly strongly disapprove of SAHDs, then, as statistically, they're much more likely to deliberately harm their own kids than a stranger is?

Of course, you're entitled to your own opinions and decisions, but history is full of women, black people, Irish people, disabled people etc. etc. being denied life, accommodation and employment opportunities, mainly on the basis of people 'just following their gut instincts' and 'well, you never can be too sure with them, can you'.

Everyone saying no - child abuse is most likely to occur by a related male, so I assume none of you leave your children alone with your male relatives?

Because the statistics show that's where the greatest risk comes from.

No, never.

I think women should be allowed in the police and fire services but I don't think the basic fitness tests should be watered down so they can pass. With the police particularly, I don't think they often have to fling themselves at randomers trying to attack children in the street. Most of the damage prevention involves calmness and communication as far as I can see.

No I wouldn't dissuade a son from caring professions, unless I thought he was a nasty bullying type looking for victims (mind you I'd be the same for daughters)

SAHDs- DH has been a SAHD for a large chunk of the past year. Not sure about your stats- surely due to opportunity...? Eg I'm more likely to die in a car crash than a motorbike crash but that does not mean that motorbikes are safer than cars.

"history is full of women, black people, Irish people, disabled people etc. etc. being denied life, accommodation and employment opportunities"....don't know why you are putting men, as a class, in with historically and currently less privileged groups. I would echo a previous poster's thoughts on accepting risk for dependents. As a single, childless person at various times I have played rugby, given lifts to male strangers, walked home alone and drunk at night, gone walking in the mountains alone etc. I still do some of that stuff but whem I only had myself to consider in the risk assessment, my tolerance for risk was higher.

To use another analogy, if I had to, I'd rather leave my kid alone in a room with a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel than a Rottweiler. Even if both dogs appeared equally gentle and lovely and their owners said they would be fine and you know that the kid would probably be safe with the Rottie. Probably.

No

Definitely not. powershowerforanhour and Headspinner2020 put it well. Male teachers are fine, it is the one to one contact, also I just find it an odd career choice for a man.

So sad to read some of these responses. We should be encouraging boys to go into the caring professions where they are underrepresented just as we should be encouraging girls to go into STEM. No wonder so many are reluctant when they are treated as potential paedophiles.

@vanillandhoney

Everyone saying no - child abuse is most likely to occur by a related male, so I assume none of you leave your children alone with your male relatives?

Because the statistics show that's where the greatest risk comes from.

Actually, they've never been left alone with a male relative apart from their father, and I know and trust him. And, even if I didn't, it's not my call to make legally whether he sees them or not.

The only male relative they've got aside from him is a grandfather. Sexual abuse isn't a concern for me in terms of him looking after them because I grew up with him and never had any issues in that regard. Physical abuse is though, which is why he doesn't see them on his own.

No wonder so many are reluctant when they are treated as potential paedophiles

Because most paedophiles and child molesters are male. On average, that's what the statistics say.

It would be great if men could go in to these professions, but something (societal or biological) let's them down.

Obviously, not all men are like this. But as a group they are more likely to commit crimes against children.

@TheWashingMachine

Definitely not. powershowerforanhour and Headspinner2020 put it well. Male teachers are fine, it is the one to one contact, also I just find it an odd career choice for a man.

What if your son told you he wanted to become a nanny? Would you tell him he was odd or think he was a potential paedophile?

No I wouldn't dissuade a son from caring professions, unless I thought he was a nasty bullying type looking for victims

That would seem unfair to encourage him, as surely you need to think about who could want him working for them, being male and much more risky (which they may not realise). If you wouldn't want a man looking after your own child, how could you impose the risk of your grown-up son on other people's children or vulnerable grandparents? From what you've said, it's irrelevant whether he seems nasty or bullying or kind and sensitive; he's male, so that automatically means that he's best turned down from the outset - and sent off to a job more 'appropriate' for a man, which then means that there's one fewer job available for a woman in that industry, and so the cycle continues.

don't know why you are putting men, as a class, in with historically and currently less privileged groups.

I'm not talking about privilege or lack thereof; just the suggestion of a blanket exclusion of a whole class of people from the opportunity to a job for which they are suited, experienced and qualified. If you believe that a woman, as part of the less-privileged sex class, is thus more deserving of a job, and so you reactively exclude him from the running, that is very different from proactively excluding him because of a certain characteristic that he has; i.e. "We've decided to choose her over you" as opposed to "We just know that we don't want you". At any rate, he could be black, Irish and/or disabled as well as male. The wicked situation caused by those nasty old signs instantly barring black and Irish people (and aligning them with dogs) was (mainly) resolved via education, law and the advancement of the equal rights of black and Irish people; it wasn't 'made right' by also banning whites and the non-Irish.

@cariadlet

So sad to read some of these responses. We should be encouraging boys to go into the caring professions where they are underrepresented just as we should be encouraging girls to go into STEM. No wonder so many are reluctant when they are treated as potential paedophiles.

We're encouraging girls into STEM because we're short of STEM professionals nationally and need all the talent we can get. I'm not aware of a similar shortage of nannies.

What if your son told you he wanted to become a nanny? Would you tell him he was odd or think he was a potential
paedophile?

I'd ask him why. And then see if we could identify different careers that he was also interested in without the limited job security and poor pension prospects. I'd do the same with my daughter though.

It would be great if men could go in to these professions, but something (societal or biological) let's them down.

If you want to know what societal issue lets them down, just look in the mirror and see the prejudice.

also I just find it an odd career choice for a man

Do you have any actual reasoning for that belief or is it just innate prejudice from the 1950s? Do you think the same about a woman wanting any career apart from staying at home to clean the house and look after the children - does she have weird aspirations causing her to make an 'odd' choice that her biology should socially exclude her from?

I would but not while my kids were non verbal.
Not being sexist, I wouldn't leave them with a female nanny while non verbal either but once they can communicate with me enough to let me know if there's something wrong I would have either sex.

We're encouraging girls into STEM because we're short of STEM professionals nationally and need all the talent we can get. I'm not aware of a similar shortage of nannies.

So if we did have enough people - men - to fill all of the STEM roles, would you breezily say "It's OK, girls, we don't need you after all - off you trot to looking after homes and children instead." ?

Having said that you'd be foolish not to acknowledge the fact men are a significantly higher risk to your children than women so if I was to have a male nanny I'd be very vigilant checking them out!

100% yes. Men in the early years can be a wonderful influence on a child. All those shouting ‘child abuse’ thousands of men manage to teach, coach, father without abusing their charges. I have worked with some absolutely amazing male early years professionals in my time as an early years teacher, they deserve our respect.

I didn't clarify whether or not the issue is societal or biological. It could be biological, as most paedophiles are Male and paedophilia is classed as mental disorder that (some) men are born with.

Having said that you'd be foolish not to acknowledge the fact men are a significantly higher risk to your children than women so if I was to have a male nanny I'd be very vigilant checking them out!

So you wouldn't really bother checking out a female nanny, as she doesn't have a penis so therefore she must be completely safe....?

paedophilia is classed as mental disorder that (some) men are born with.

Not just men - just because women lack the ability to perpetrate the most obvious form of sexual abuse, the mental disorder that leads to paedophile urges is by no means only restricted to males. As for other forms of (non-sexual) abuse, there are sadly a lot of perpetrators out there, of both sexes.