Is she being unreasonable re childcare?

[dottieautie]

A relatively new mum friend (mumchum) had asked if we could share childcare over the upcoming strikes & nursery closures. I agreed but explained I would be working so it would be my DH (he is striking but not on picket line) who would have to take the kids (3&4). I did ask him first. He told her himself, he was happy to have them as two is often easier than one.

Mumchum then started saying she’d try to find someone else as it wasn’t fair to my husband. This has angered him as he thinks she doesn’t trust him with her child. Our mutual friend messaged me to say mumchum had also refused her husband to care for her kids a day during the strikes (he is also on strike) but it was ok if she would be doing it.

Is mumchum being unreasonable? Why is it ok for me to look after her child but not my dh?

YABU - Mumchum has a valid point. Striking fathers shouldn’t be doing childcare.

YANBU - If the dads are available but the mums are working then she ought to be happy someone is offering to have her kids.

Exactly. Men should pull each other up on this. Not manipulating women into letting them look after children because otherwise their adult male ego's are hurt. Boohoo.

Also males should put more effort into being active parents and engaging with children if they want to be “trusted” with them.

There are men who do…my husband speaks to a lot of the mums at school drop off, arranges play dates, helps on the PTA…but he is one of only a small handful who do. Most of the men/fathers don’t put any effort into things like play dates or childcare. Fine if people have arranged their relationship that way, but don’t expected me to trust some random bloke who I’ve barely seen just because he’s your husband.

@Whowhatwherewhenwhynow OP hasn't said whether her DH is a well known member of broader community but she certainly has flagged that the OTHER man who was also potentially one of the carers, has been known to her "mum chum" for years.

Also, it's bollocks that if a man is on the school run etc he'll be fine. It took DH YEARS to be accepted as the default carer for our DC. It was a bit easier with DD as she started school just before Covid and so there are actually quite a few men who now WFH and are more visible, plus DH is fairly well known now. But I can assure you, being there didn't magically make the parents who are terrified that all men are predators more likely to let him hang out with them.

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

@NotLactoseFree do you think that it is irrational to be terrified of your child being sexually abused. Not all men but (almost) only men. Grateful if you advise how to o spot those men that are a risk?

I understand the fear but I'm not comfortable with this idea that even if you've known a man for years, know his wife and children etc, you are too scared of letting him look after your children for a few hours. It doesn't reflect real life - yes, most sexual predators are men, but it's a small percentage and sadly, often over long term grooming etc.

The point is that there is absolutely a risk that if you get in a car, you could be in an accident and your child killed. And yet people still do it. And yet, when it comes to allowing a man you already know looking after your child for two hours, the risk is considered way too high? It makes no sense to me.

@NotLactoseFree gotcha - so it’s not men who you know well. I mean. That’s not true. But gotcha.

and the same risk assessment for child swcuao
abuse should be applied as for car accidents - because the correlation in these two similar risks is, well.

that indeed makes no sense to.

@NotLactoseFree It would be great if knowing a man for a long time would allow you to know whether or not he was a paedophile. None of us wants to think that someone we know and trust could do something like that.

However, unfortunately, that is how predators get access to children. Not many of us would leave our child with a stranger. But we might leave them with a family member, family friend, someone we know and trust, and in some cases this will have terrible consequences. Children's abusers are usually someone they know. We like to think as parents we would be able to tell if a man was like that or not. Sometimes a man will set off alarm bells somehow. But if it were always possible to tell, CSA would never happen.

It's entirely up to her who she leaves her child with. Yabvu.

Look, you can all have your own preferred risk assessment which is "no man will have access to my child ever". I disagree with that risk assessment. I don't think it's sensible or realistic. It is over stating the risk, with the potential impact of limiting things your DC can do or your own childcare options. It also doesn't take into account other ways to mitigate risk - eg as per an earlier statement, while it's true that it's usually men known to a child who is the abuser, it's also often over a long time and with elements of grooming involved - so for me, I'm not hugely concerned about a 2 hour play date.

But you do what works for you and I'll stick with what works for me. You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours.

Also, yes, I'd consider serious injury as a result of a car accident a pretty serious risk.

But it’s a weird comparison? There as no correlation in causes, mitigations strategies or in percentage risks?

you are perfectly entitled to do whatever you want to do. But your post was based in on the position that your position makes sense and others don’t.

comparing to the risk assessment for car accidents does not make sense 🤷‍♀️

Its her choice. We don't know if she's been sexually abused when younger.

“But I can assure you, being there didn't magically make the parents who are terrified that all men are predators more likely to let him hang out with them.”

I didn’t say it would magically make people want to hang out with them, because people can hang out with who they want and avoid who they want. They don’t need to justify why.

my point was it shouldn’t be on women to go against their instincts and let a man look after their child or engage with men they’re not comfortable engaging with. If men, as a whole not individuals, want women to trust them more, especially with children, then men (as a whole) need to work on male violence and get more engaged with child caring.

I agree the car accident comparison is odd. We do mitigate against the risk of car accidents. I researched car seats, make sure the car seats are fitted properly and I wouldn’t let someone drive my children if I wasn’t happy with their driving.

people make difference choice.
you might not make the same choice and that’s fine, but it’s not fair to question someone else’s choice

You have no idea of what experiences she has been privy to regarding child endangerment.

I have extended family who due to their past would never leave their children (until teenage years) with any male other than their father.

There would be significantly less men that I would leave my children than women purely due to having more women friendships.

My parents very much trusted the male family friend who looked after me as a kid, it turned out they shouldn't have.
I don't leave my children with anyone whether I trust them or not.
It's not personal to your husband her choice is personal to her, people have boundaries, personally I think being too trusting is not a risk I'm willing to take.

Taking care of other people's kids is a pain in the arse.
I'd be pleased she will be finding someone else.

She's far from alone in her mistrust of men around small children sadly.

So what? Children don't exist to validate men's feelings.

She's not unreasonable. She doesn't know your husband. Her daughter doesn't know him. You won't want to hear this but the majority of people who abuse children are men. Thus, the chances are better for her daughter's welfare if a woman minds her.

I would refuse to help her if she asked, x