Ban male nursery workers?

[BluntPlumHam]

I came across this article which has left me quite sick.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze665j2y51o.amp

Said 18 year old was newly qualified nursery worker who’d SA’d and raped 3 year olds.

Nurseries are desperate for workers and I have noticed through friends and families that there is now an increasing number of men entering the profession.

Men traditionally haven’t performed this role and I often find it difficult to envisage what attracts a male to this profession to begin with when we have so many instances of men who run away from childcare responsibilities.

Although men entering the profession can be a positive outcome the other very concerning outcome and on the potential rise is this.

Sex offenders will target this profession no doubt as it gives them easy access to children.

men are significantly more likely than women to sexually assault children.
Official statistics consistently show that the vast majority of individuals convicted of, or reported for, child sexual abuse (CSA) are male. For example:

• In the year ending March 2019, the Crime Survey for England and Wales found that 92% of adults who reported experiencing CSA said the perpetrator was male only.
• In 2022/23, almost 99% of individuals convicted of child sexual abuse offences in the UK were men.
• Reports to the Australian Royal Commission by victims and survivors of institutional abuse revealed that 93.9% of the abuse was perpetrated by an adult man.

So just a blanket ban on them all together ?

It isn’t my personal opinion but I do think we ought to have measures in place to make nurseries more secure and safer. This thread is to invite discussion.

Also, kudos to those brave little 3 year olds who had the courage to tell their parents because they’ve saved a lot of potential victims in the future. My thoughts and wishes for a life time of healing for them and theirs.

It still happens however as so many people have told you the early years setting is extremely different to that of schools. You could certainly compare but there’d be a lot of variable factors that wouldn’t allow a fair comparison.

One example is nappy changing/toilet assisting which would greatly reduce the opportunity for a school age teacher as opposed to a nursery worker.

I think this is all interesting and I'm not necessarily gainsaying it, but some musings:

1. I think an argument for keeping it to nursery (and possibly special needs provision) is the non-verbal / otherwise particularly vulnerable cohort.
2. I think the adoption by only men is an interesting one and given I'm not sure where I firmly stand on that either, so it's not an immediate negative comparator to me.
3. Practicality of political agreement is also an interesting one but I don't think necessarily has to be considered in the argument of what should happen in the optimal case.
4. Slippery slopes aren't inevitable if there are good distinguishing reasons. If we're looking at it from a position of what's logically and morally correct, I don't think we have a problem.

Implementation would doubtless have its own set of challenges but I'm starting by trying to square with myself what is 'right' as a starter for 10, I suppose! Possibly a slightly artifical separation.

Thanks for the discussion, I'm finding it very interesting and useful.

Having men in a nursery setting is an unnecessary risk. That’s it. That’s the point.

It’s an additional risk to all the above, and one incredibly easy to avoid—don’t put your kids in a nursery that hires males. I sure wouldn’t. No benefit, all risk.

This is a very interesting way round of putting it that I hasn't thought of before.

Forget banning men for a second, is it morally justifiable to be actively encouraging more men to join early years provision when you know it will increase CSA in those settings?.

That is quite a confronting way of putting it, and possibly a lot easier for people to grasp. Essentially, is it right to deliberately worsen the status quo re CSA in nurseries? If so, what is it that you think justifies the increase in abused children?

Thank you. Very well put.

Yes, and I think that question applies in relation to single male adoption too. Just had a quick google to see if any stats on prevalence of abuse in that cohort are available, having come across some horrific news stories before, and find various positive news stories from single males encouraging others to go through the process. Is that ethical for news outlets to do this?

In an ideal world, where we had sorted out our male sexual violence problem as a society, of course encouraging more men into caring roles would be a good idea for children and society at large. But we have not, not by a long shot. It’s hard for some to even acknowledge the increased risk posed by males, as evidenced on this thread.

Yes, male adoption is another one I'm unsure about.

However, I can see that one probable alternative there (children staying in care rather than being adopted at all) has terrible outcomes itself, both for CSA and life in general. I'd be interested to know if single male/ both male parent adoptions are better in those regards and wouldn't be surprised if they are.

I don't think the alternatives to male nursery workers are particularly negative so there's potentially less of a child welfare counter-balance in that scenario.

One of my frustrations is that it seems to me that as a society we're so unwilling to robustly investigate these sorts of questions and gather clear data for fear of what it might show (and, cynically, for fear that we might then have to do something that could offend some people in order to address it).

And knowing all of this, you still would trust a male nursery worker with your child?

When I say not a possible solution, I mean legally. It is a minefield. Otherwise, absolutely.

Ah, probably, yes. Although I think it would be interesting to see an argument made for proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim!

Yes because that person is probably the statistically least likely person to abuse my child compared to eg male family members or my friends’ husbands or partners. So I would be okay with a male nursery worker just as I’d be okay with my child going for a play date at his friend’s house where his friend’s dad will be present in the house. I wouldn’t assume abuse because if I assumed it in one setting I’d have to assume it in all of them.

@Glowingup Your entire argument through all your numerous comments seems to be that if children are getting abused in other settings including through relatives, why not let them get abused in nurseries as well, to put it bluntly. Doesn't it make sense to do whatever possible to mitigate the risks in the settings where it is possible? It's about reducing risk as much as possible, not eliminating them altogether. You acknowledge that men are at higher risk of offending, but don't think measures should be taken wherever possible to reduce that risk, especially during very early years when a child cannot speak or express themselves.

The argument that nursery risk is fine because you are most likely to be abused by a family member is a logical fallacy.

It’s like saying most attacks by animals are from dogs, therefore sending your child to pet a bear is fine. The reason most animal attacks are from dogs is because there is so much more contact with them. The question of whether bear contact is safe depends on the behaviour of bears, not the behaviour of dogs.

On one hand, nursery staff are screened and somewhat monitored. On the other hand, people who want access to young children for bad purposes will be disproportionately attracted to the role. The question is which factor dominates.

Personally, I believe men have no business being in nursery settings. Men should never be allowed to change nappies or have any unchaperoned access to children that do not belong to them.

I would have thought the same as you prior to reading this article (below). "Predators" dont think the same way as you or I.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-28/paedophiles-share-childcare-abuse-tips-on-dark-web/105938932

A few quotes if you cant be bothered reading:

"Four Corners asked Arachnid analysts to scrape dark web forums on child care to see how offenders talk and plan.

Most of the material is too explicit to show, but the discussions reveal how organised and deviant they really are.

One of these guides instructs predators applying for work at childcare centres on how to answer job interview questions about why they want to work with children."

A quote from the guide itself: "One really good news for us paedophiles is that most daycare centers, or any similar institutions, look at men as a positive thing. This is because they want the children to have male role models — this is actually a very important subject in children pedagogy today," the handbook says.

Other quotes where forums users are posting tips about abusing without detection specifically within childcare centres.

So yes, nursery work is clearly seen by paedophiles as a way to access children. Which is of course, not the same as saying that all male nursery workers are pedophiles.

I had no issues with one of DT’s key workers being a male. He was an excellent nursery worker and popular with parents and children. DT’s started full time nursery from six months (10 month waiting list for their nursery so we had their names down whilst I was still pregnant). A very popular nursery.

I don't think men should be changing nappies or toileting.
Even if pretending the risk isn't an issue, it's a general dignity issue allowing a strange man to be changing young girls.

I agree with you OP.
When the arguments boil down to on one side, children being safer; and on the other side, some men might not get to do one job that only a small minority want to do anyway, in a society where pretty much every other job welcomes and often prefers them to women, I have no problem at all with that.

DD’s nursery had a male worker and he was a very positive influence on the children. The nursery had very strict protocols though and no member of staff was ever alone with children and the toilet set up meant that it would be very difficult for anything to occur. They were especially aware that some parents would be suspicious of the male and so the age group he worked with was the oldest pre schoolers - so not those that needed nappy changes and far fewer needed toileting help and they were much more able to be communicative. The nursery also did a lot of educating the children about touch, “private parts” and things like that so they were quite hot on protecting the children as much as possible.

I think the criteria for working in childcare should be tighter (an adult social care too!), there should be more vetting of all nursery staff. But I am not anti-men working in childcare at all.

Because children can talk.

Because it's much harder to get children on their own in a school setting.

Because most children at school do not require nappy changes, so intimate care by teachers is almost non-existent.

That's not my experience in early years at all, I've never been somewhere with enough staff to have two people changing a child or putting babies to bed. If two people are in the toilets with one child, someone else is alone with 20 other kids.

That is absolutely chilling(And stomach churning).

There’s been 3 or 4 incidents in the past 15 years of male nursery workers abusing children. And several more of non sexual abuse by female workers. So banning men would do very very little to protect children.

Just 3 or 4? Do you mean UK only though even then I can find more than that? Considering how comparatively rare male nursery workers are I think that the numbers are very concerning and the pattern seems to exist world wide when I see very similar stories repeated all over the world. 10 minutes Googling revealed literally dozens of stories of male workers abusing children. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

maybe 3 or 4 that we know of