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

I think you know yabu but you're trying to work through the feelings of unease and that is perfectly reasonable.

If it helps the male staff at our nursery were absolutely and I do mean absolutely brilliant.

Indeed. If we really cared about protecting children and going on nothing other than raw statistics, all caring parents would hand over their babies to be looked after by institutions straight after birth.

You'd know which parents were the suspicious ones who were most likely to be a risk to their children, as they would be the ones who disregarded the best statistical needs of their kids and insisted on looking after them at home themselves.

Just as there are definitely some women (the vast majority of the workforce) who are going to abuse elderly residents in the care homes where they work.

It would be wonderful if there were a way of knowing categorically in advance which people - men and women - would pose a threat to any vulnerable people, and ban them from ever working with them in any capacity. Unfortunately, that just isn't possible.

In that case, maybe it would be best as a society that only wants to protect children if we banned mothers with pre-school children from working and ever leaving the children with anybody else (including alone with the children's fathers)?

That's surely the very logical conclusion from your opinion, isn't it?

There is nothing wrong with assessing and mitigating risk but quite frankly you are coming across as just outright prejudice and irrational.

I hope your child never has surgery as the likelihood is they will be unconscious in a room with at least 2 men......or what about when they get showers at school or sporting events when they get older, are you going to ban all the other students too.

Its about proportionality and you are getting this way out of proportion. You can make a decision for yourself that you do not want to take the risk of putting your child in a nursery with male carers but understand that they have gone through exactly the same training and pre employment checks as the women in the group so making insinuations like this is not appropriate nor informed.

it's important to know that the vast majority of childcare workers, regardless of gender, are dedicated professionals who provide safe and nurturing environments for children.

I agree.

Hence why people are so wary of settings for their elderly relatives and why many people (not just the parents/family but the workers in settings too) are hyper vigilant around child and vulnerable adult safeguarding.

I have worked with people with clean DBS's and great references, only to need to report them to the LADO and dismiss them for behaviours that were way too high risk for our liking. We are particularly vigilant though - nothing gets past us - we hope.

But the parent might be male and most abuse is committed by family members so basically children are to be brought up in the sphere of women only??? Its just not rational.

And don't forget if you go in a car with a child, there could be an accident, so you had better walk, ooh but the floor might be slippy! Its just irrational, yes take precautions but don't get stuff out of proportion and make it something far bigger than it is.

No, the answer is either no males in a pre-school setting, or a very restricted criteria for what roles and responsibilities a male can have in a children's setting.

A crude example would be: no toileting/changing/undressing/cleaning of children, no mobile phones or other recording devices in areas where there are children.

Currently there is no particular safeguarding guidelines for males around pre-school children, even though the statistical risk for sexual harm from a male is higher than for a female.
It's just taking into account statistics and doing a proper risk assessment and putting in mitigating processes.

Until that happens - on overall balance, pre-schools with males are not as safe as pre-schools without males.

Nah you're right. Males should not be working with very young children who are too young to verbalise or communicate sexual abuse.

Source: I'm a teacher

I weigh up risk according to what I can and can't control.

I can't control the unknown risk of a male in a nursery that I may only see for 2/3 minutes a day.

I can control the unknown risk of the men in my child's life as I have known all of them for 20-30 years, I can see their interaction with my child and I can control their access to my child.

I am not risk averse, but I will not risk the sexual abuse of a child. That's one risk I will not take.
If we all die in a car crash, or break our ribs sledging - meh.

I don’t think you are being unreasonable. As a general rule I don’t trust men and I certainly don’t trust male strangers with children who can’t talk and I would wonder why they have sought out work in a nursery changing nappies erc. I don’t care if people think that’s unreasonable, there has been too much sexual abuse in environments where men have chosen to work with children and as a survivor myself I don’t trust them, I don’t care if the majority are kosher 🤷🏻‍♀️

Again, most child abuse is by male family members, family members raised by their Mothers, maybe with their sisters so they aren't short term relationships so I do not follow your rational.

One would hope that no family member would knowingly let a paedophile look after a child or be a parent, yet it happens and how long have they known the man without realising their inclinations? At the least the men in nurseries are qualified and vetted which is more than can be said for male family members.

Your rationale is flawed and you are getting the risk out of proportion but hey, if you don't want your child in a balanced, diverse environment, then your are perfectly entitled to that choice.

How have men in nurseries been 'vetted' @RockOrAHardplace ?

Exactly the same all workers in childcare. In the UK, childcare workers must undergo a thorough vetting process to ensure they are suitable to work with children. This process typically includes:

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Check: This is a criminal record check that reveals any spent or unspent convictions, cautions, reprimands, or warnings.

Employment History Verification: Employers will verify previous employment to ensure there are no concerns about the individual's suitability.

References: References from previous employers and other relevant individuals are usually required.

Health Declarations: Some roles may require a health declaration to ensure the worker is fit to perform their duties.

Interviews: Interviews with the candidate to discuss their experience, suitability, and any potential concerns.

These measures are in place to protect children and ensure a safe environment in childcare settings.

If you are assessing risk then you need to know that this has been undertaken as a very minimum when leaving joint child in a childcare setting, nursery or educational...and this applies regardless of the sex of any childcare worker. This also applies to healthcare workers, teachers, NHS workers etc.

Exactly.

A check does not exist that ensures that a person is not a sexual risk to children.

A DBS, standard/enhanced/enhanced with barred list - just means they haven't been caught.

That's all. Not caught.

Although these checks are useful to find out if a candidate has any obvious alerts on them - they are in no way a guarantee that a person is not a sexual risk to children.

A number of people have made the comparison to men being paediatricians or GPs.

I suppose the thing is there is an obvious reason why a man would be attracted to medicine other that wanting to help children. It is still a very well paid career.

I often get the impression that many nursery staff work in the field despite its poor pay because they like children and perhaps they don't have better paid options open to them.

It's an unusual field for a man to choose to go into because it is poorly paid and often men who don't have lots of academic qualifications manage to go into trades. I think there are still lots of barriers for young women to want to do trades.

I would just worry that a certain number of men who worked in nurseries were there for the wrong reasons.

But you don't do these checks on your male family members so its a significant improvement on that....your rationale does not stand up.

I can easily control the access male family members have to my own children.

That's the difference.

So women can love working with kids and are therefore willing to accept the low pay but men aren't??? How sexist is that rationale.

In British history, the legal responsibility for children traditionally fell on men due to the patriarchal nature of society. This was rooted in the common law principle that the father was the head of the household and responsible for the welfare and upbringing of his children. This principle was reflected in various legal statutes and practices throughout history but basically men had all the legal rights and we had none, we were just the caregivers.

The shift towards recognizing the mother's role in childcare began to take place in the 19th century with the introduction of social policies aimed at child welfare and protection. For example, the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act 1889 allowed the state to intervene in cases of child neglect and abuse, marking a significant step towards shared parental responsibility. Its only because we women fought back that we have the rights we do now and we should have learnt chilcare is equally the parents responsibility and that its not exclusive to men or women.

If women want sexual equality, they have to give it. Women never got to be engineers or pilots as we weren't deemed clever enough or strong enough but we proved them wrong and its changing.

Why can't some men be the child carer, because I know a fair few women that haven't got a nurturing cell in their body and whilst they may not sexually abuse kids, they treat them in a way that damages the kids mental health and they in turn become a danger to others. Its not just men, it works both ways.

You are being very narrow minded.

Including the Father? Because if its all men, that includes the father too. In your words...Meh!!! you are boxing yourself in a corner. Ooh and what about the Grandfathers!

And going off statistics, those wanting no men in childcare settings are also calling for 100% of childcare abuse cases to be committed by women.

OP, by all means, chose a nursery without any male staff, as it your right.
But if they later take on male staff, or male childcare students, will you remove your child?
If your child has a male teacher or TA in reception, will you remove them from the school? As children have accidents and sometimes need help getting into dry clothes, and they get changed in the classroom for PE....

As a male in childcare can I suggest a way forwards? If you have an issue with men in childcare don't send your children to a setting with a man/men in it. And if don't, then they employ a man, take your child to a different setting. Don't want men? Fine. You do you, but don't complain and spread smears and rumours about somebody who's just trying to live their life and go to work while simply being male.

Bit of a cross post with @Bushmillsbabe !

.