Male staff in nursery’s

[Itsoneofthose]

Ok, hear me out.. I know this is controversial but today I was shown around a nursery for the first time. I’m dreading leaving my little one, only because I’ll miss her and worry about her. I don’t think my worry is out of proportion or anything like that though. But today I saw two male nursery nurses. Now, I know there are many men who are great with kids, and not all men are a threat to children (obviously) and women can also potentially pose a threat to children but I just don’t know how I feel about male nursery staff. Hmmm. I know I’ll be shot down in flames for this. Nursery’s are well regulated etc etc. I just can’t help feeling a bit uneasy about the whole thing. Has anyone else experienced these thoughts? AIBU

Mr Huw Edwards, child porn enthusiast, was an accomplished, extremely competent newsreader

Please can we stop saying child porn.

SEE LINK

My DH has worked with early years, and groups of all ages, but mostly secondary age, and he’s always said he would never work in early years full time due to this issue of people thinking he would be predatory in some way. Early years children often need intimate care and so this is probably the main reason. They’re so vulnerable at that age. But male teachers in a pre-school can be great role models for young children too from a learning perspective IMO.

Why does being 'respectable' or having a qualification mean automatic trust?
Plenty of respectable pillars of the community have done terrible things.

Yes, I ought to know (in fact I do so no excuses) better. Sorry.

So Katie Roughley and Lucy Letby never happened then??? Beverley Allitt??

Not so much of a "gotcha" there either! Stupid terminology anyway.

Totally different scenario and not remotely comparable.

It isn't stupid terminology.
It's published statistics from the ONS.

And Letby and Allitt are rare birds indeed.

I used to work in a women's prison.
90% of prisoners in this country are male.

Of the 10% of women prisoners who are incarcerated, only one in ten of them have been convicted of violent crimes.

Some of us who have either been forced to grapple more personally with the issue or those with more questioning minds, realise that professionalism is nothing. It means nothing.

In your mind you think. 'Oh. Mr Tom/Dick/Harry is extremely ernest. He's extremely professional. He smiles. He has a wife and daughters and a golden retriever, he rescues cats from trees, he took a long time to achieve this position' etc. etc.

To us we realise he is first and foremost a man, end of. And actually the best predators rely on and sadly weaponise this sort of trustful naivety. Let me tell you that the best paedophiles are very sociable, likeable, charming, competent, accomplished, they do good things, get involved in all the spheres of life that are open to them. This is the best way to successfully get access to vulnerable women and children without anyone being or becoming the wiser.

Now, does this mean every man is a predator? By no means. But it is not 'ridiculous' to want to avert any chance of harm by avoiding a male presence for intimate care, especially around particularly young impressionable often non-verbal children.

In schools I think the risk can be mitigated more, because children can be taught physical awareness and there is less need or justification for alone time with children. Red flags have a greater chance of drawing attention. Still, sadly some risk remains

Male staff are great role models and show that working with children isn't a woman's job! Personally I would see this as a plus. Not all children have a male presence in their live (not having a go here, it's how it is for some children).

Male staff are great role models and show that working with children isn't a woman's job

I don't disagree with this, but people are missing the point, I think.

Men are very, very much more likely to be violent to other people than women are. That's the sticking point for me on this issue.

I don't believe Huw Edwards ever worked with children...

"Luxury beliefs" my ass!

Do you not think that we can all rustle up some statistics to support our arguments - doesn’t mean it’s conclusive proof!

Hell. Tobacco companies had the world convinced it was good for us, people were prescribed smoking to help chest conditions.

We can quote how many men abuse kids, someone else counters with how some pregnant mothers abuse their foetus by drinking, smoking, drugs etc whilst pregnant and, for example, the baby is born with foetal alcohol syndrome and developmental delay!

Surely it’s about assessing the risks and skills, experience of the person concerned and how those risks are managed to make them unlikely.

Seriously - the ONS used, "gotcha"??

Pull the other one.

And sexual crimes against children aren't necessarily "violent"!

A man had a part in creating the child!

"Those with more questioning minds.???

You have to laugh.

Maybe try broadening that "questioning mind"!! How prejudiced you are.

Find another nursery.

It would not be fair on the nursery staff for you to accept a place with your prejudices.

It's increasingly looking like Lucy Letby may well not have happened, but I digress.

As I said before, I believe when women abuse young children they have a greater chance of success and evasion, because people who implicitly trust men, are even more trusting of women, and also because women in general aren't known for violence and sexual crime.

But even in cases where women do get involved in sexual criminality or violence towards children or other women, there is often and somewhat predictably a man involved or drug addiction. One sees stories every year of a previously loving mother suddenly becoming involved in the death of their child, shortly after becoming involved with a new male partner. Or they assist men who are predators.

So even in these cases the end goal when women abuse, is often to appease or satisfy a man or men or an attempt to avoid becoming the main target of men. Not solely their own gratification.

But yes, regardless of all this, there are a small number of female sexual predators. By contrast to men the number is so small as to be negligible. So less issues with women in nursery settings.

Of all the replies, ultimately this is the most sensible. I don't think OP is going to change her mind despite all logical arguements to the contrary, so as tiggergoesbounce says, she is better to take her prejudice elsewhere, and let these men get on with their jobs

What's wrong with your arse?

I used an example of how competency in a professional role does not equal safe or trustworthy.

If it doesn't guarantee safety in a role which isn't centered around children but still provides access to vulnerable teens by proxy of reputation and standing, how much less so does professionalism equal safety when the role is primarily centered on children?

@TightlyLacedCorset no, I was just hi lighting the difference between a professional setting and passing a stranger on the street, as these are two completely different experiences.
People have stereotypical, socially constructed biases of men, just because they are male, which is very evident within this thread.

For everyone else, the Lucy Letby trial isn't even a viable comparison - that is extremely rare. You cannot use that as an argument for women abusing trust. We are talking about every day nursery occurrences after all.

Except I don’t.

I might feel uneasy if the man was behaving in a threatening manner, but I would if the woman was too.

The only time I have been attacked on the street and mugged it was by two women.

Does that include all the men in this line of work who are convicted of abusing the children in their care - they all had a special calling did they

Nope. Pragmatic. Discerning. Cynically pragmatic perhaps. But overall just pragmatic.

You keep waving the batten for men all you like without question. No is stopping you. But I don't do penis worship. Evidence repeatedly shows men are more capable of violent and sexual crimes to women and children.

I reserve the right to not implicitly trust men. There are plenty of examples to justify being concerned about men administrating intimate care. If that makes me prejudiced as you put it, I really dont care. I do not give two figs. Less harm would take place if people were more cautious.

Have really never been harassed or sexually assaulted by men? I mean that’s great but i imagine your experience is very unusual

How about the women working in nurseries/nannies etc who have abused children? Of course, sexual abuse isn't the only risk.

There was a case recently where a female nursery worker put a baby to sleep on her front wrapped up tightly so she couldn't move and ended up suffocating her. This was after days of her, in front of other female nursery workers who stood by and watched, telling the baby things like she'd had enough of her etc.

The reality is that there is always a small risk if you send a child to nursery, use a nanny etc and yes, the risk of sexual abuse is lower with no man there but sexual abuse isn't the only form of abuse. Safeguarding policies need to be the focus to make nurseries safer for children, not focusing on a minority of men who work in nurseries. A false sense of security just because the nursery workers are women can be dangerous too.