To think that it isn't just men who are capable of sexual abuse of children?

[dizietsma]

There's a thread in the Relationships section about a woman who is concerned about letting her FIL near her baby 'cos he was convicted on child porn charges. Obviously some people get very incensed on this topic, but I'm getting a little bit tired of the sexism associated with paedo panic. One poster was talking about how she'd never leave her kids alone with a man in case he sexually abused them. Like ANY man. To me that is nothing but blatant sexism. Women abuse kids too!

Nonsense kama

I'm sure the pilots would be delighted to hear that little chestnut

kama

how on earth did this thread get here?

did you make the point on the original thread?

i did have the same belief as op... as it seems majority of us do.
just wondered.

Not just men. Had a case in Australia recently where a mum raped her daughter.

here

This is a vile thread

I have reported this thread it is disgusting!

whats disgusting about it,its a valid discussion is it not?

I don't find anything disgusting about the thread and find the idea that we don't "need" another thread on this topic a bit odd, tbh.

If you don't want to enter the discussion, then don't. Those who do, will. Need does not enter into it.

The weird thing was that the poster on the other thread who said he and dp would never allow their child near any man was- a man! So how come his dw allows him near the baby- has she not read that fathers are among the prime offenders in these cases? Or does she think she has unerring ability to make up her mind about one male in the world only? Strange?

oh cory - you mean me don't you??

This thread has no merit whatso ever. On the original thread I posted some detailed stats. on female offending, on it's infintessimal incidence compared with male sexual offending.

I also posted the reasoning as to why dd's mum and I came to the decision we did.

You appear to be not satisfied with this, and so have decided to do a bit of "fire-starting" with another thread.

Good luck with it.

You did post the reasoning - it just didn't make sense to me. I see nothing in the statistics to suggest that male pre-school teachers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers should present more of a risk than fathers.

And if you had checked out the names, you would see that I did not start this thread.

This is not a personal attack on you- but I am worried about a fear spreading through society which will basically mean the death of the extended family as a unit where different members help out. I also have a small son who wants to be a primary school teacher. Should I tell him men can't do this job?

Naturally you wouldn't trust somebody who had proved unworthy of trust- but then there are lots of mumsnetters who wouldn't let their ex-husbands anywhere near their children. This is about personal experience and as such has no relevance to others.

sorry, you didn't start it, it was dizietsma.

but frankly still couldn't be arsed answering your queries. Everything is on the other thread.

have a nice one.

my dd1 had a male teacher in year 3.i never saw it as any different to having a female teacher.i wouldnt leave young children in the care of somebody i didnt know or trust,be they male or female.when it comes to school teacher,i assume theyve had all the necessary checks and i have to trust the school not to hire unsuitable teachers.

A girl I used to work with was abused very badly by her mother .

It also left her infertile

"This thread has no merit whatso ever" ???

1. Are we only "allowed" to have one thread on any one topic at a time?

2. Isn't that code for "I don't like what you are saying"?

It defies reason to imagine that only men can be sexual abusers but, while I accept the likelihood of underreporting of abuse by females, I do believe that most abusers are male.

Extrapolating that to never allowing your child to be around any man is just ridiculous.

no Mrs, it isn't code for anything. And of course we can have as many threads as we wish.

I was just noting that the issues raised here had been raised, and discussed on an original thread, though this OP hadn't read it all ( and it's jolly long).

sorry, Ms! Aaaagh!