Priest telling boys how to pee at school?

[Downamongtherednecks]

Tween ds is at a private school, not UK. Most staff are female. There were incidents of the boys’ loos being left with pee around the lavatory bowl, so a male member of staff (priest) took the boys into the loos (in groups) to tell them that this was unacceptable and to suggest that they aim better and that they should perhaps practice more (!).
This was not discussed at all with parents.
AIBU to think this was not an acceptable thing for the school to do? It seems far too private and something surely better handled by parents. Priest has form for sexism so it is possible that may be one reason I instinctively don’t like it. DH (robustly boys’ private-school educated) says this was fine, it's a boy/male teacher thing, and he can’t see a problem with it. Happy to be told I am being biased against the sexist priest. No intention of taking it up with school btw, as dc are leaving anyway. AIBU?

[PhaedraIsMyName]

Yes the howls of outrage over the use of "hysterical" were hilarious.

I'm enjoying this thread.It really should be re-named;

"Mumsnet shocker poll- 99.9% approval rating for Catholic Priest in boys' school toilet exposé"

[mathanxiety]

"Better than most" is actually funny, because her (professional) experience is that there are an awful lot of bathrooms much worse than DS's, belonging to older boys and men. And nowhere did I state that I think peeing around loos is allowed, nor that the school should not deal with it.

I do not understand at all how you think 'better than most' is in any way funny. Or acceptable. If you think there is anything funny about it, if you wink at it in any way, then you condone it.

Boys and men get so much approbation from this culture for everything they do and say and think, they actually have to hear a very unequivocal NO before they take notice and stop and think a little.

When women accept anything short of zero mess we create a rod for our own backs and for the backs of other women, and we encourage the sense of entitlement that constitutes the status quo unless we fight it in every single detail, every time it rears its ugly head.

[mathanxiety]

I don't know if this has been said, and I realise the discussion has branched out, but it seems to me that it the OP while very clued up on how sexist the word 'hysterical' is and has decided the priest is some sort of sexist neanderthal, she seems to be far more preoccupied with the idea that the priest has crossed some sort of line here than with the idea that parents have a duty not to foist sexism on the world, and that one great way to ensure you do not incubate a sexist neanderthal is to teach him that he is not entitled to make a mess of the bathrooms he uses. Sexism begins at home.

[Sirzy]

Its not innane trust, its just not extreme paranoia. Realistically for most children the paranoia and being made to think they can't trust anyone is going to be much more dangerous.

Realistically children are more at risk from abuse in the home or by someone close to them.

Realistically we need children to be cautious of course, but also to build relationships of trust with adult outside the family.

[phantomnamechanger]

don't twist what I was saying Anna. My point was that percentage wise the risk, whatever the headlines might make you think, is still small. It makes the news because it is shocking when it is clergy, teachers etc, but what about shopkeepers/postmen/relatives/ all the other adults in the world. Is EVERY adult a threat? Or are only priests to be treated with inherent distrust and suspicion?
No one has said you must blindly trust the establishment, only that there was nothing at all wrong with what the priest did. Would you be worried if your DC was in hospital and needed to be assisted to the toilet by a nurse? Do you never let them go to parties/clubs/playdates where other adults are in charge of them just in case ?

Of course you make judgements based on how well you know the parent, and you teach your child to know about privacy and appropriate boundaries. But you can't be with them 24/7.

In the scenario in the OP the risk of anything happening was so minute as to be almost non existent. OK maybe he has a pee fetish and was getting off simply talking about it in public- even if that was the case NO harm came to any of the boys. There was no one-to-one secrecy, no inappropriate touching or watching.

[Nomama]

But your way we all live in fear all the time. We assume every single person around us is capable of an will do something terrible...

.. and they all look at you as though are too.

That wholly ensures a very ill and dangerous society.

[Annafromtheoffice]

"what proportion of teachers/parents/medics have also been exposed as abusers " exactly! There shouldn't be an implicit trust for any adult - a lot of people on this thread alone have expressed the view that 'it must be okay' because we should trust the establishment. My point is - why should we? When the police, the government, the BBC - all institutions which we've all previously regarded as honest and moral - have all been exposed as having corruptions (not saying ALL people involved, but enough to make us question their integrity)

This innate trust is frightening.

[phantomnamechanger]

I was also going to ask what % of the worlds priests that 400 is sirzy, and what proportion of teachers/parents/medics have also been exposed as abusers ?

400 as a number on its own means nothing (I am not condoning their actions, obviously 400 is 400 too many, but then so would 4 be 4 too many)

[ABlandAndDeadlyCourtesy]

If you weren't implying that, what did this mean?

"It might be sezamcgregor but the others are choosing to turn a blind eye. "

[Sirzy]

400 out of how many priest worldwide?

(and before you say it, no I am not justifying anything done by those 400, nor by any non priest child abuser. But perhpaps you need a bit of perspective on the issue?)

[phantomnamechanger]

OMG is this ridiculous nonsense still going!

[Nomama]

Oh dear!

[Annafromtheoffice]

No I am absolutely not implying that.

The news, however, may suggest otherwise.

"Close to 400 priests were defrocked in only two years by the former Pope Benedict XVI over claims of child abuse, the Vatican has confirmed"

[Simplesusan]

Of course the school have done nothing wrong.

How would you feel if someone pissed all over your toilet seat and floor and didn't clean it up?

I would be bloody fuming.

[Nomama]

Anna, are you totally sure that remark to me was what you meant to say?

Ludicrous. Utterly ludicrous!

[ABlandAndDeadlyCourtesy]

Anna, did you just imply that said priest molested one if the boys during this event?

[Annafromtheoffice]

It might be sezamcgregor but the others are choosing to turn a blind eye.

FYI Nomama, Jimmy really did fix it.

[sezamcgregor]

Also - perhaps the boys RESPECT the Priest more than the teaching staff and so they thought they might actually pay attention to him

[sezamcgregor]

I thought this was going to be a molestation thread.

FFS - you should be whittling more about the fact that boys their age still cannot aim into a bowl and piss on the floor.

[Sparks1007]

You want SS to teach boys how to pee straight?!

[Nomama]

Hakluyt - that is never going to happen

[Nomama]

You are making assumptions Anna. As a priest he is probably one of the most trained individuals - our religious representative is. Given the nature of their duties it wouldn't make sense if they were not!

[Sirzy]

There isn't anything wrong with it Hakluyt hence why the few hysterical posters who think it is wrong can't actually provide anything close to a logical reason as to why it is wrong.

[DownByTheRiverside]

What an oddly twisted interpretation of my post that was, Anna.
I shall stop trying to explain things, your alternate reality is not one I know.