AIBU to feel uneasy about male staff in nurseries?

[Beautifulsiro56]

Males working in my cbildrends nursery- makes me feel so uncomfortable
Why would a male want to work in a nursery? Most nursery abuse cases are men.
Men shouldn't be allowed to work in nurseries? AIBU

Is the same question asked about male teachers?

If they had to provide intimate care for babies and young children, yes.

5 out of 6 male nursery workers probably just love children and want to do a great job.
It's the one out of 6 that has a sexual interest in children that's the concern.

So 17% of male nursery workers are paedophiles? What’s that stat based on?

In an Australian study, 1 in 6 men reported sexual feelings towards children. They actually found that the men who had sexual feelings towards children were more likely to work with children than those who didn't.

Actually, statistically they are at higher risk. If you think the fact that the risk is fairly low overall is enough that a rise in that risk doesn't matter, that's your choice. But personally, I choose to lower risks wherever practical.

Disallowing a child from ever being alone with their father is not proportionate, but simply not having male nursery workers is very easy, low impact, and entirely proportionate - yes, in my opinion - given the vast increase in risk level that they pose.

To bring up the accurate stats from the Australian study (PDF link) as they're often misrepresented regarding the '1 in 6' stat -

"Six survey items were used to determine if men had any sexual feelings towards people below the age of 18 years. These were:

• Has sexual feelings towards people below the age of 18 years (3.4%);
• Would have sexual contact with a child between 12 to 14 years if no one would find out (5.7%);
• Would have sexual contact with a child between 10 to 12 years if no one would find out (4.6%);
• Would have sexual contact with a child younger than 10 years if no one would find out (4.0%);
• Has concerns about sexual feelings towards people below the age of 18 years (4.5%);
• The lowest age they typically find attractive is under 18 years (5.7%)."

So, the '1 in 6' includes under 18s. But 4% of men would have sexual contact with a child younger than 10 - the relevant aspect for nursery. Which gives us 4 out of 100. But -

"Men with sexual feelings towards children who have offended against children [...] are almost one in twenty men in the Australian community" and they "had 2.73 greater odds of working with children compared to men who did not have sexual feelings or offending with children."

In addition, "Men with sexual feelings who wanted help were more than twice as likely to work with children compared to men with sexual feelings who didn’t want help."

So let's make both those who have offended, and those who have (yet) but have paedophiliac feelings, combined at 6 times more likely.

I'm not great with numbers (so correct me if I'm wrong), but I think that means that statistically speaking, 24% of men working with children have sexual feelings for children, with approximately 10.92% having already offended sexually against children.

That seems worryingly high - have I gone wrong somewhere with my maths?

Fair enough. It's nice to know your views are consistent. I disagree, but appreciate the consistency.

I think the actual reason isn't dignity anyway - it's because when women go to get mammograms, they don't know if they have cancer. And if the mammographer could be male, the uptake by women would drop dramatically, especially in certain ethnicities, as older women who - as far as they know - are healthy, won't want to expose their breasts to strange men, and the rates of undiagnosed breast cancer would skyrocket.

Once a woman knows she has cancer, however (if she does have it) she's much more likely to grit her teeth and accept a male medic, as the choice is that or death by breast cancer. So it's to reduce the incidence of unnecessary deaths, I believe.

As for cervical smears, one can turn down a male nurse, and request a female one.

As for all the pp saying how enthusiastic and wonderful the male nursery workers they know are/were, now I'm thinking....is that because nearly a quarter of them were sexually attracted to the children...?

You know some men actually love children and enjoy being around them. It's so fucking sad that this is alien to you.

In my day, a lot of the girls pushed towards doing NVQ childcare courses were those girls who were not academic and I'd say at least half had SEN. They definitely push some people towards the field just because it's something they can do and I guess they assume all women love babies and children. These were sometimes girls that had already showed that they themselves have issues regulating their emotions and generally understanding social cues. They were vulnerable in their own right.

They are not the right people to deal with a bunch of humans who are in their most unreasonable and infuriating stage of life (infanthood).

It makes sense to say that there are women in EY roles who would have preferred to have a different job. But here they are years later and can't afford to start at the bottom of low paid work. Men make a lot more conscious choice to enter the field.

No its because they want to be there and probably as men don't spend as much of their time as women caregiving outside of work. It's truly something different. Not just home chores at work.

It would be easier for them to be in a different and more traditionally male field in many ways, but theyve chosen something that actually warms their soul.

If this is true than the obvious answer would be to ban male nursery workers. No doubt!!
Also that people are absolutely correct to be wary.

A lot of mothers must feel guilt at leaving their children at nurseries, so it's understandable that they would want to see the best in a male nursery worker.
It also helps that these guys are also going against expected gender norms.
It may make them feel better.

Perhaps it can be seen now how manipulative these men are.

It's one of those jobs were the least enthusiastic person would be the more trustworthy. Bit like politicians.

Given the choice in an emergency I'd rather drag a few decent enough guys that I know to be fairly good dads (based on the fact their children love them) into looking after the children at nursery than a male one who wants to do it. They may grumble and reluctantly look after the kids but they'd do it and probably be safer.

you’ve already got an unnatural situation of people who are not emotionally and biologically attached to children and babies and you then want to add to the unnatural scenario of males who do not have the hormones flooding their body to make them attracted to caring and nurturing for little children.
It’s bullshit

Are my statistics wrong? Have I figured something out incorrectly? (I may well have! In fact, I hope I have!) Or is it true that potentially a full quarter of men working with young children may want to rape them?

I'm sure many men (most men!) do just love kids and want to work with them, but if 24% of men working with children want to rape them, then possibly (just maybe!) it might be proportionate to keep men out of those roles altogether. Even if it does mean that 75% of men sadly lose out on a job they might love.

After all, they can always work with older, verbal children, in roles that don't involve intimate care, where the risk is lower.

Totally agree.
The unenthusiastic young girl is authentic. She'll do the basics and care for the child's needs, though.
What more can people expect?

What makes you think that men arent naturally inclined to protect children? That seems strange. They always seem to want to show their chivalry and sacrifice themselves for "women and children first". Or "no woman, no children" when it comes to doing harm.

Do the men in your life not naturally protect children?

Like the one recently found guilty of doing things like kicking children? How many more of those do you think there are that arent caught? Pinching children and squeezing them too hard and things like that?

There is, of course, with women and teenage girls, still a definite risk of neglect or physical abuse - especially if they don't really want to be there - so safeguarding still needs to be implemented very strictly.

But banning men would (almost) entirely cut out the risk of sexual abuse, and I think that's something that should be done.

Where does this 24% of men working with children want to rape them come from?

No men protect women, it’s the biggest load of crap and the biggest lie that they’re trying to perpetuate.
If I’m in an emergency situation including violence, the people that statistically helped me out are other women
Men stand and watch.
Or join in

See my comment up thread, only a couple above the one you quoted.

Ok.

I think this might be cultural or something. I am accustomed to chivalry in men. It isnt unproblematic but it is focused around the protection of women and children. I hope you meet better men than your father and male partners.

This?

That's what safeguarding is for. Someone needs to care for children after all, and men pose a risk of both physical abuse, and sexual abuse. Women only really pose a risk of physical abuse, with sexual abuse stats being miniscule.

So it makes sense to eliminate the sexual and physical abuse threat men pose, and to use safeguarding to try to (imperfectly) prevent the physical abuse threat that women pose.

No, the one with all the numbers and statistics, here:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/amibeingunreasonable/5513572-aibu-to-feel-uneasy-about-male-staff-in-nurseries?page=13&reply=151563366&utmcampaign=reply&utmmedium=share

ETA: As I said, my conclusions may be wrong - I'm not the best at maths - but if they're right, I don't think men should be allowed near a nursery.

Culturally ? Which cultures do you think are the safe men ? I’m fascinated.