To think male nursery workers should be banned for safety reasons?

[Carla786]

I KNOW most men who work in them are fine but sexual abuse in nurseries is overwhelmingly committed by men. No more men, much less abuse risk.
Yes we need more CCTV etc to watch bad women but it cuts SA risk immeasurably.

We can still have male primary teachers etc kids are old enough to speak up then.

And yes, you can ban on the basis of sex for safety reasons. In women's refuges, eg.

Why are you so unwilling to admit that in some cases men pose a greater, not equal, risk?

Think about why that is. There is a high level of opportunity in the family setting which is more difficult to mitigate against because, well, families are not childcare businesses.

That is simply not true. Be honest with yourself and think back to being a teen girl

Thank you!

Because some women are unable to countenance the idea that women as a group might be actually really good at things like caring for children, on average, because it's too low status for the yas queen ladyboss "feminism" that permeates all discourse

I think men pose a higher risk in terms of SA but there is more than one type of abuse and women are just as capable of those (more so in my own experience). I think children should be protected against ALL forms of abuse.

I've experienced it all and the stuff that stays with me the most, and did the most damage, was the emotional and mental stuff.

Do you understand there are biological reasons which make men much more likely to have paraphilias, including paedophilia?

If you know MOST men who work with young kids are not abusers, why do they need to be banned wholesale from nurseries then?

I haven't forgotten and haven't forgotten the earlier years either. The stuff that has done the most damage is emotional and mental. I was just as concerned with protecting my children from that.

Because most sexual abuse in nurseries is committed by men, and paedophiles are disproportionately likely to volunteer for that job. Ban men, sexual abuse in nurseries will be drastically reduced.

... because men in early years settings are massively disproportionately likely to be there in order to abuse children.

With respect, your husband's feelings are totally irrelevant to these stark facts

Where have I mentioned my DH's feelings about this?

To be clear, I absolutely support taking steps to stop incidents of abuse in nurseries. I just don't believe a wholesale ban of male workers is the answer.

So a man can provide care and support for a child who is 4yrs and 1 day old in a primary school, but not a child who is rising 5 in a nursery setting? Now there's consistent.

Or Mr Mann can help you with your maths but you are going to have to remain in wet pants until Mrs lady comes back from whatever errand she's running because Mr Mann isn't allowed to help you change?

Let me correct myself sorry. Your feelings about DH career choice. They are irrelevant to the actual facts here that we can quickly and easily reduce real cases and risk of CSA in early years settings by removing male workers outright

I would rather my own DC had to wait a little bit to be helped to change by a female teacher or for me to come and get them than a male teacher help with this. If a male teacher touched any of my children in this way I would be involving the police

Okay, but what about male teachers working in EYS in primary schools, where 1 in 4 kids aren't toilet trained?

Parents really need to up their game (except where there is SEN, of course, that can't be helped). Maybe there should be a policy that parents, or someone they nominate, like a grandparent, gets called every time if a child needs that kind of care? Protects the teachers and the children. If it's inconvenient, parents can just take the time to toilet train their trainable children.

I've answered my personal policy on this above. But overall the risk is much lower given the children are older, able to communicate in words, most children are able to go to the loo independently.

You'd call the police? I hope your kids never have a male teacher, for the teacher's sake.

I would absolutely be getting police involved if a male teacher thought it was his role to "help" any of my DC with toileting in any way. Normal and safe male teachers would understand why

This article in 1993 from the Independent had an interesting letter section. I quote 3:

Should men work with children?: We asked for your views, following the nursery abuse case
Sunday 09 May 1993 00:02 BST

I WORKED as a therapist with women who had been sexually abused as children. I
would suggest that all men who seek careers in nursery education should be regarded with the deepest suspicion. It is a most unusual career for a young man to choose, and the motivation of each male applicant should be thoroughly investigated and his personal, medical and psychiatric history researched in depth. I am much more interested in the safety and well-being of children under five than I am in promoting equal opportunities for men in the field of nursery education.

Margaret Taylor

Bromley, Kent

THE DATA which is available on sexual abuse by welfare professionals clearly indicates that the question raised by Angela Neustatter has to be taken very seriously indeed.

Most recent data comes from the United States. One of the world's most respected researchers, David Finkelhor, reports in his book Nursery Crimes that 60 per cent of the perpetrators of sexual abuse in day care were men, even though males represented only 1-10 per cent of the staff there. The researchers expressed surprise that 'men, who constitute a small proportion of day-care workers, should commit such a disproportionate amount of abuse'. Similar findings have been produced in virtually all fields of child welfare.

Of course, many male welfare carers do not abuse. The problem is that it seems from the evidence that the risk of male carers abusing may be much greater than that for females, and we do not seem to be able to distinguish those who will abuse from those who will not. Given, then, that men appear to account for a massive proportion of sexual abuse in welfare settings, why is so little consideration given to the option of restricting their role?

At the end of the day we are talking about balancing 'rights' against one another. In the light of the evidence, which 'right' is more important: that of men to work in the professions of their choice; or that of children not to be sexually abused?

Keith Pringle

Senior Lecturer in Applied Social Studies, University of Sunderland

MICHELE Elliott of Kidscape believes that if men are prevented from working with children then it is a 'sacrifice that has to be made'.
IN response to your article on whether men should work with children, I would like to say what it is like from the abuser's point of view.

I was abused throughout my school years, from the age of seven, by house staff, teachers, cleaners, older boys, the school doctor and matron.

I left school and found that I loved working with younger children. It was easy getting a job: you didn't have to say anything about your past, or how you would deal with naughty children. I thought that some sexual abuse was wrong, but it wasn't talked about. I abused boys into my twenties: by fantasy, using their images to fulfil my needs - a form of abuse; and by 'playfighting' in the swimming pool or while watching television with them.
I believe very strongly that all jobs where young children are involved should have a written test on how one deals with their problems, such as crying and wetting themselves. Men must be asked about their past, and police records must be made available
Gracewell Clinic for Sex Offenders did not work for me: I soon found myself back working with children and abusing them again. I am now in prison, about to start a programme to help control my sexual urges towards children.
Helping victims is very important, but helping abusers not to abuse more children when they leave prison is also important. That must come from society - by having better policies on recruiting men into childcare, and by pushing the Government to provide help and advice to both abused and abuser, 24 hours a day if necessary.

Name and address withheld

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/should-men-work-with-children-we-asked-for-your-views-following-the-nursery-abuse-case-2321851.html

This was in 1993. It's been known for a long, long time.

Most recent data comes from the United States. One of the world's most respected researchers, David Finkelhor, reports in his book Nursery Crimes that 60 per cent of the perpetrators of sexual abuse in day care were men, even though males represented only 1-10 per cent of the staff there. The researchers expressed surprise that 'men, who constitute a small proportion of day-care workers, should commit such a disproportionate amount of abuse'. Similar findings have been produced in virtually all fields of child welfare.

If men had been banned then, how many children could have been kept safe from nursery CSA?

Well that's an appalling statistic that needs to be addressed. Not by banning male teachers - I'd like to see a better balance of male and female teachers overall - but by early intervention. There should not be so many children going to school not toilet trained.

The David Finkelhor book was in 1988. The US was reeling from the fake Satanic Panic McMartin nursery cases, so they may have been more inclined to brush off the issue. But clearly it was serious back then.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Nursery-Crimes-Sexual-Abuse-Care/dp/0803934009

It's not just toilet training either.

www.theguardian.com/education/2026/jan/22/children-england-start-school-without-being-toilet-trained-teachers