17yr old boy found guilty of child abuse

[Ikeasucks]

Aibu to be pissed at how many women here were so scathing and dismissive of those in the past who said we weren’t comfortable with our babies/toddlers/very young children having male carers in a nursery setting or as a nanny etc? We were told condescendingly how ignorant and bigoted we were - i don’t fucking care at how right in you are and superior i still feel the same way www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cze665j2y51o?at_medium=social&at_link_type=web_link&at_format=video&at_link_origin=BBC_Surrey&at_campaign=Social_Flow&at_campaign_type=owned&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_link_id=4FF97A8E-B8A8-11F0-A794-E0B1162F2AD3

I think most women understand that men are more of a risk to babies and children than other women but I don’t think it’s likely there will be some sort of law change banning men from these sort of jobs. It’s normally because of cases like this that new safeguarding measures are put in place, will it ever be 100% safe, sadly probably not.

I know that men are way more likely to do that but you can't just say people who don't assume all blokes in early years care are paedos were wrong.

It’s grim, but the study says this number of 1 in 10 includes technological sex abuse, ie accessing child abuse images.

In addition, a “child” includes children up to age 17, the rate of offending against nursery age children is much lower.

Finally the “large study” was actually a study with a teeny tiny sample size of 1,945 men.

Saying it isn't worth the risk is not the same as saying all blokes are peados.

I hope you don’t leave your DC home alone with a male relative because those males are the most likely to sexually abuse a child. Not nursery workers or babysitters.

I think men are more likely to be caught than women which accounts for some of the statistical disparity.

TRIGGER WARNING: I was on one parenting forum eons ago where mums were literally discussing giving their baby boys a ‘penis massage’ at the bedtime nappy change to get them to relax and go to sleep faster. I was utterly disgusted as that is outright sexual abuse. But the moderators disagreed with me.

If it had been men discussing the exact same thing, they’d have been arrested and locked up as paedos.

Important to remember that not everyone on the internet is who they say they are... for all you know they were men and they may have since been locked up.
That's in no way evidence that women get away it more often.

I understand this, but you’d think deletions would have occurred? But the moderators let it stay up and continue on.

There are also academic studies done on the topic of bias meaning that female CS abusers tend to get away with it for longer and have more victims. Culturally, we are not taught to monitor women with children as closely as we monitor men with children.

”For example, there is a stereotype that a sex offender is a man who is a stranger. However, the evidence suggests that only 7% of those who offend against minors are strangers and up to 14% of all sex crimes are perpetrated by a woman. So, when an upstanding member of our community or a woman is engaging in boundary violations, we may not pay close attention, or we may discount it because we feel that they are not threatening.
Similarly, there is some research suggesting that our ability to detect sexual grooming behaviors may be subject to the Hindsight Bias in which once we know the outcome (i.e. the abuse has happened) we overestimate the likelihood that we would have been able to detect it before it occurred. For example, when Sandusky was charged with child abuse, people came forward to say that they witnessed behaviors and boundary violations that were either not reported or taken seriously.”
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse/202112/how-biases-and-stereotypes-can-prevent

So do you also agree with racial profiling? as well as gender profiling?

Also this.
https://theconversation.com/women-also-sexually-abuse-children-but-their-reasons-often-differ-from-mens-72572
“A study for the Home Office in the UK in 1998 indicated less than 5% of child sex offences were committed by women. This is supported by data coming out of the Royal Commission – that 5% of the alleged abusers associated with the Catholic Church were religious sisters – as well as research based on correctional services data in Australia.
The author of the UK report acknowledged the number may be lower than the reality. A 2015 study looked at virtually every substantiated child sexual abuse case reported to child protective services in the United States in 2010. It concluded more than 20% of child sexual abuse cases reviewed involved a primary female perpetrator – so estimates vary significantly.”

“Research has routinely indicated that women are 4.5 times more likely to offend against their biological child, as well as other children in their care.”

“Estimates indicate somewhere between 90 to 95% of all sexual abuse goes unreported, and the number is probably even higher for female-perpetrated sexual abuse.”

I agree that men are far more likely to sexually abuse a child.

Most child abuse is not sexual. While specific percentages can vary, studies indicate that neglect is the most common form, accounting for about 75% of reported cases, followed by physical abuse (about 18%), emotional abuse (about 7%), and sexual abuse (approximately 9%).

So even if we take the highest estimate of 20%, when we account for the fact that children are far more likely to be in the care of women in the first place, we can still assume that men are very much more dangerous.

When the difference in offending patterns between blonde and brunette women, and between French people and non French people look anything like the difference between rates of sexual assault on children between men and women, we can maybe revisit that question.
At present we're discussing crimes committed against children almost exclusively by men and whether removing the opportunity for men to commit the crimes would make children safer at nursery. Which it clearly would.
The only question really is, is that fair on the tiny minority of decent men who may want to work in nurseries? The answer, not really. But children's safety is imo more important than men being able to choose this particular job.

Yes men are far more statistically dangerous than women for sexual abuse, less of a gap for the other more common forms of abuse.

However, the risk of a child being sexually abused in the first place by a nursery worker/random stranger is so low that it doesn’t warrant a ban on men imho.

What should be done are safety measures to protect children from any worker abusing them because we cannot assume women are safe either. Especially since the more common forms of abuse can permanently disable or kill a child.

That 20% is out of 9% of all child abuse…

I look at it the other way. The number of men who would suffer from banning them from one job that hardly any of them want to do anyway, is so tiny it doesn't justify risking even one child being sexually assaulted. We can't remove all risk because someone needs to work in nurseries and very occasionally women harm children. But the presence of men doesn't reduce that risk, and adds another.

But if men are unsafe to work in EYFS then how do we justify letting them work in older years education? How do we let be be nurses or doctors, knowing that they're a danger we need to remove. Where do you draw the line? Are they safe to be police officers? Social workers? Sports coaches?
And then look at the stats for fathers / uncles / grandfathers etc that abuse children - their own or friends. Wouldn't it remove a lot of risk to children and women if we made heterosexual living illegal? Just get her pregnant, pay child support and have X amount of supervised contact a week

Lack of staff.Also wondering how did he become so sick? Only 17.

No, because those suggestions are either unworkable or carry a different level of risk. Children of nursery age being cared for, often intimately, in the absence of their parents are highly vulnerable, so their risk is greater than that of a child sitting with their male teacher in a classroom and who won't be taken to the toilet or undressed by that teacher.
Family life is impossible to restrict in the ways you mention, so risks need to be mitigated in other ways.
A ban on male nursery workers addresses a danger for a particularly vulnerable group of children, and can be achieved with very little negative impact on anyone else.
Doing this one thing doesn't mean we have to do a lot of other more extreme, unworkable or less necessary things. Why would it? We can do just do this one thing and remove this one risk. Why wouldn't we?

My thoughts exactly.

There are male teaching assistants and pupil support assistants who undertake personal care of minors, particularly in ASN settings for example where a child is unable to to carry out their own personal care. I’ve worked in these areas with male colleagues, not enough staff to have a 2:1 so personal care is carried out 1:1

Then those situations should be risk assessed on their merit. I don't have any information on instances of sexual assault in those circumstances to say whether its appropriate for men to be doing this work. Do you have the figures?

No, I don’t have the figures, all I can tell you is I worked with male colleagues in primary school settings, both PSA’s and required to carry out personal care as part of their job description

Actually when I did my training on Child abuse ( student Social worker 20 years ago now ) .. we were told more women SA children then men , as they have more access to children

Well if we don't know whether that resulted in child sexual abuse or not, I'm not sure what it adds to a discussion about nurseries where we do know there have been cases of sexual abuse by male staff?
If we had figures for comparison we could consider why men didn't offend in those settings, whereas they do in nurseries, or if figures showed they did offend, we could consider whether they should be barred from those settings as well.

Why are so many men caught viewing child abuse images - often category A - but its rarer to see a women in the news for this. It indicates something about the risk levels.