Would you consider a male nanny?

[Earlybird]

I am currently registered with a nanny agency looking for a one day a week nanny. A friend has just called to recommend a nanny who is available - and a 30 year male. Supposedly he was in his last job for quite awhile, and his previous family loved him.

I have several initial reactions - does it matter that he's male as long as his references and police check/first aid are OK? Second, it could potentially be good for dd to have a man around as I am a single mum (no father in the picture, and no partner), and dd does, at times, seem starved for male attention.

Would it seem strange for a man (no relation) to collect dd from school, take her to birthday parties periodically, and supervise playdates? Part of me wonders if I could feel comfortable with a man looking after dd (she's 4.5), giving her baths, etc. And would other mums hesitate to let their daughters come for playdates? Am I too paranoid? Too conventional?

Think I need to decide if I'm comfortable with the idea of a male nanny before I decide to pursue it further. What would you do?

Thanks, I am genuinely interested, my question wasnt meant to be inflammatory.

My first reaction before I had thought about it was to worry about a male nanny.

However, when I thought about it, I realised that it's not because I believe that male nannies are a risk but that I feel irrationally protective of my DD - probably way beyond what is really necessary. I worry that if anyone did abuse her in any way, it would be my fault as I should be able to prevent it (in anyway I can). It's the stories of kids being abused by family and friends that ruins it for us all. Their parents were obviously confident that these people could be trusted. This coupled with being taught to be wary of men from an early age, by our equally paranoid parents, makes everyone doubt their instincts, the very things we are supposed to use to protect ourselves.

I'm really glad I've read this thread as it's something I hadn't thought about in any detail before and I'm surprised at my own sexist reaction. I think I would consider the person (male or female) rather than the sex first and person later. It's also made me realise how difficult life must be for males in this profession and how because of this, you're more likely to be getting someone who is good at and really wants to do this sort of job - why would they put up with the predjudice otherwise?

I just thought I'd add that part of the reason I (and probably others too) had an initial negative reaction to the idea of a male nanny is because it's unconventional so the idea surprised me a bit (silly, I know).

Enid - I've been lurking on and off, and felt that as a male carer, it was important to add my two cents. I usually contribute to a forum where posts veer towards the wordy, rather than opting for brevity, so my apologies if I tend to whitter on a bit.

I don't doubt that prevalence of female over male carers skews the statistics on neglect somewhat - it would be good to see a report specifically controlled for such factors. However, violent treatment as in the link provided by Dizietsma should not be skewed in the same fashion, and yet mothers offend more often.

My point, by the way, is not that "women are worse" or that "men are better" with children. My point is that gender is not really a factor in your ability to care for children, rather it is mostly a non-issue as socialization and upbringing seem to be the true determiners of ability to care, so denying a carer on the basis of gender is pointless.

I feel like the language in your post really gets to the crux of the matter: the common bias that "women are the carers in the first place" and that "you [ie, men] can't neglect if you don't have anything to do with the care in the first place." I think the bias in those words speaks volumes more than anything I could say.

madmarchhare - I should point out that I never said anyone was "WRONG" if they had these biases. I said that people who immediately responded "no" to the idea of a male carer should maybe consider what this says about them, because it says -nothing- about male carers. Having a bias or prejudice is not "WRONG". We -all- have areas where we are blinded by passion or ingrained response. But I think these blind spots need to be challenged and recognized, in others as well as myself.

I used that term ignorant, in it's original sense of "uninformed", because statistically abuse is not really confined to one sex, and basing a life-altering decision on the chromosomes of your applicants seems silly, at best.

I'm not here to attack anyone on the basis of their biases, but here to challenge these biases, because I am VERY aware of them as a man in childcare. Still, I wouldn't give it up for the world, because being a carer is the most rewarding job I've ever had, hands-down.

Thanks to everyone here who would judge a carer individually - need more PARENTS like you in my workplace!

Hopefully I've added something of substance to this thread, and not just the ravings of a disordered mind!

Earlybird,

While I understand (although don't agree with) your concerns re hiring a male nanny as I have a daughter, I find your statement "I don't feel like breaking barriers/fighting sexism when dd's wellbeing is involved" offensive. I'm sure the male nanny concerned would want you to hire him IF he was the best person for the job, but wouldn't want you to feel worthy for having done so. To dismiss him without having met him purely on the basis of his sex is both sexist and not potentially in the best interests of your daughter, as you may be missing out on a really good nanny.

Your concerns and those of others in this thread seem to me an emotional - rather than a thought-out and logical - reaction. The argument that paedophiles are often known to the child applies (sadly) as equally to male relations as it does to male nannies. One of my friends was sexually abused by her grandfather, another by her godfather. In both cases the girls' parents didn't have a clue, despite knowing the men well. Sorry if this shocks people, but my point is that paeodophiles are a very small part of the male population and there is no way that we can or should stop our daughters from interracting with men. What we can do is to listen to our instincts re people, teach our daughters what is and isn't appropriate behaviour and to share any worries they have with us, and to carry out thorough checks re childminders (regardless of their sex).

You made a very good argument, Earlybird, in favour of potentially hiring a man. That is, your child needs a male influence. I would think that when hiring a nanny you would want someone who complements your parenting, and that may be for example providing a male perspective. What I find even more offensive than your statement above is someone (or various people) on this board stating they couldn't understand why men would want to look after children. I know a bodyguard to a famous person who told me the best job he ever had was working as a nursery school assistant in Japan. He had to give it up due to his visa, but he said it was fantastic having kids so pleased to see you every day and watching them learn. This is a guy who is six feet five and is a trained martial arts expert. My husband constantly says he wishes he could look after our baby daughter full-time as she is so much fun and he loves her so much.

The male nanny may be fantastic and a good fit or he may not; just like a female nanny. His sex shouldn't be relevent to whether he can do the job properly. I have been surprised since having my baby at how my friends and relatives act with her. A very close female GP friend of mine who spends a lot of time with her nephews has shown no common sense or patience whatsoever when dealing with my daughter. My childless and much younger brother and brother-in-law however are both fantastic, protective and responsible with her.

My advice would be to meet the male nanny, preferably brining someone with you for their opinion. If you like him, introduce him to your daughter to see whether she feels comfortable with him. Then do your checks. Good luck.

My sister & I trusted her new male friend for years(he was openly gay). He still managed to abuse her little boy under our eyes. She only found out by her little boy saying 'mum, I don't want to be gay anymore'. Let that be a lesson to anyone out there. Everyone was taken in by this beast.

A lesson in what undercovermum? What happened to your nephew is horrendous and very very but all it shows is that that one man shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children, it doesn't mean that every man you think you can trust with your children will abuse them.
This mentality of all men are potential peadophiles is ridiculous, a tiny percentage of men are peadophiles and there are many many men out there that are absolutely wonderful in a childcare role. I can actually say that looking at my own family and friends that the men are generally better with the children! ( I have a sneaking suspicion thats its because they don't want to grow up, and like to get involved in all the games! lol) but seriously in my direct experience, the men I know who are around children, either fathers or those that have children in their close family tend to have more patience, are more willing to get their hands dirty and really get involved with playing with the kids.
It makes me really sad that there arn't more men in childcare roles, and If I was looking for a nanny I would definitely consider a man, I might even be slightly more inclined to employ a man, having done all the checks etc etc, as I am a single mum and my dd doesn't have very much contact with her dad.

I'd like to take issue with TTT statement "

However, violent treatment as in the link provided by Dizietsma should not be skewed in the same fashion, and yet mothers offend more often"

Was it specifically adjusted to take account of the fact that women are more likely to be the main carers of children? If men are not present in a child's life they can't be violent to them.

Maybe you could point me to the section in the report where it shows this as I haven't got time to read it all.

I'd like to take issue with TTT statement "

However, violent treatment as in the link provided by Dizietsma should not be skewed in the same fashion, and yet mothers offend more often"

Was it specifically adjusted to take account of the fact that women are more likely to be the main carers of children? If men are not present in a child's life they can't be violent to them.

Maybe you could point me to the section in the report where it shows this as I haven't got time to read it all.

I'd like to take issue with TTT statement "

However, violent treatment as in the link provided by Dizietsma should not be skewed in the same fashion, and yet mothers offend more often"

Was it specifically adjusted to take account of the fact that women are more likely to be the main carers of children? If men are not present in a child's life they can't be violent to them.

Maybe you could point me to the section in the report where it shows this as I haven't got time to read it all.

It's a shame what happened to undercovermum's friends' child. Things like this should not happen to anyone. However, her point is vague - are we supposed to not trust male carers, men in general, openly homosexual men, or what? I worry that the logical progression for some people here is "he was gay, and therefore a paedophile" which is a common logical fallacy people propagate. If someone is sexually molesting children they are not gay OR straight - they are paedophiles. If undercovermum's story had concerned a straight male that abused a child, would that have been pointed out? Would it have read "My sister & I trusted her new male friend for years(he was openly straight)...." if that were the case? Somehow I doubt it, but I could be (and hope I am) wrong.

Martini, you could always... I dunno... read the link? Novel idea.

My point was that as "women are more likely to be the main carers of children" (ahem), is being used as an excuse for why women (apparently) neglect more often than men, but that should NOT carry over logically into "women are more likely to be the main carers of children, and are therefore more likely to physically abuse their children statistically" because it was not a "study of abused children" but rather a study of children, which asked if they had ben physically abused. It's hard for me to make this point clear, so I apologize if it sounds like gibberish, but trust me, it -does- make sense.

Honestly, I imagine any skewing of the statistics on neglect OR violence is minimal for the same above reason, but I was trying to make a different point at the time.

BTW, it's a good study - using the Conflict Tactics Scale developed by Straus, which still pretty much sets the standard for investigating every sory of physical or domestic abuse.

I would because my husband is usually working away or too tired or has a headache

I have just spent the last while reading this thread from the start, and to be honest, I'm shocked. This is only my second thread to contribute to on Mumsnet, but I feel compelled to on this occasion.

So many generations of women have had to fight for rights: voting, equality in the workplace, equal pay (still an issue) amongst many others. It sickens me that we as women who have fought so long and hard against sexism and narrow-mindedness would then turn around and carry out the same injustices, and then worse - try to excuse our behaviour. My son is 6 months old and loves spending time with my dp, 3 brothers, 2 grandads, godfather and my male friends from home. I would not dream of denying them this pleasure because they are men and "all men are abusers". I'm sorry but that is just pure and utter bullshit.

Earlybird, do what is best for your daughter, whether that means hiring a male nanny or female nanny. As parents we have all carried out checks on anyone caring for our child and of course, any doubts - don't go there. But to dismiss someone on the basis of gender is fundamentally flawed and bigotted beyond belief.

TTT and any other male carers out there, not all of us think you are pervs waiting to pounce. I can only imagine how much you all must love your jobs to put up with such an amount of suspicion and I applaud the strength of character it must take to continue - your charges are very lucky.

Dublin - if you want a male nanny - go right ahead. Not my choice tho, but I respect your decision. Shame you can't respect mine................

I respect your decision if it's based on whether the person is right for looking after your family, has adequate qualifications and fits your family's personality. But if you're basing it mainly on the grounds of "male nanny no" "female nanny yes" then you're right I don't respect your decision. As a fair-minded person I just can't and I'm sorry if that offends you. But, think of all the male nannies you're offending with your view....

Dublin - don't think you understand the meaning of the word. Respect means allowing others to have a choice/view/opinion, even if YOU don't agree with their choice.

Still slightly rattled by the fact that some people think that just because our gut reaction says 'Ooo I'll have to think about this' is sexist or bias.

I think that most people have gone on to say that they would absolutely consider it. Out of all the posters by far it seems the majority would employ a male nanny.

That said TTT I do understand your frustrations as this must be something you come across more often in your day to day life than us cackly old gossipy hags on here do .

Obviously everyone is entitled to their own opinion re the gender issues of childcarers.

Myself I would consider either, to me it would come down to relevent experience, child care related qualifications, personality & of course references, CRB checks etc.

I think it is more of the general public where we need to have more awareness. In the saftey issues for children we/parents/carers need to install age appropriate that the "not nice People" out there will come across as nice people etc eg. when I use to be a special constable and needed to attend an incident with a colleage & two 7yr olds .... I will always remember "but mummy they didn't have two heads they didn't look like a monster"... it is amazing how children think what these people may look like?

Also thinkig back because of again worries that certain public members have .... when to intrevene "the Bulger child" aftermath most males were to frightened/worried to step in etc "for the worry of being accused !!!"

Obviously There Will be some people who will never consider a male "whatever" due to very Personal life experiences & possibily nothing will change their thoughts there.

I have personally known many a childcare professional be them Male or Female and they are all excellent, professional & following their vocation.... Respected via their employers, adored by the children & their friends who come to play etc ... all the household running very smoothly Monday to Friday.

Just may be if there were more Male Qualified Nannies since this is really the topic of the thread, just may be the would be less disgrunted mumsnetters (as it seems to appear)on this board who just happen to be moaning (rightly or wrongly) about their child care & childcarers who alway's seem to be Female.

Give me the perfect professional childcarer any day regardless of gender.

goldenoldie, in what way exactly is Dublin stopping you from having your opinion? Is she, IRL, threatening to beat you with a length of pipe? She doesn't agree with you, but that doesn't mean she's keeping you from self-expression in some arcane, how-dare-you-disagree-with-me-my-plot-is-foiled! fashion.

madmarchhare - I guess it's the same to me as if an employer said to themselves "Ooh, hire a black person? I'll have to think about this..." because gender, race, religion, and creed shouldn't come into it - capability should, and how you feel about the person as an individual.

It's bias, in the sense that you're halted or considering an aspect of an individual that, ultimately doesn't really have anything to do with their ability to do a job well. I don't think you're evil or anything, by the way. Like I said, I have biases like everyone else.

Thanks on behalf of every male in childcare to those who recognize the difficulties inherent in the job.

I have biases too, hey nobody's perfect but at the same time like you said Tom capability should be the reason not gender. I'm not perfect I have pre-concieved ideas about stuff like everyone else, I just feel really strongly about equality in all areas of life Golden - whether it be male/female, gay/straight/bi/whatever!, black/white, religious....

And no, I'm not in the habit of beating people with a length of pipe Tom. Well at least not since Matthew was born have to be responsible mummy and role model now!!!

Madmarchhare wrote:
"Still slightly rattled by the fact that some people think that just because our gut reaction says 'Ooo I'll have to think about this' is sexist or bias."

Having a gut reaction to an idea or scenario is of itself not sexist. It's what you do with the gut reaction that counts. Yes, most people did go on to think about that gut reaction and question it, and when they did so they decided they would consider a male nanny because it came down to the invidual. However, some people in this discussion - and it is only a few - have written that they wouldn't consider hiring a male nanny (regardless therefore of the type of person he was) and that they "couldn't help" their gut reaction. Unless that reaction is based on personal bad experience with a male carer, then that is sexist. You CAN 'help' your gut reaction. If you don't challenge your own or other people's then you are liable to be bigoted.

I'm sure there are men who have thought "ooh no, I couldn't hire a woman (or someone of colour)" (regardless of how qualified and suitable a particular woman was) and who would argue that becase that was their 'gut reaction', because they felt uncomfortable with the idea, it was an acceptable point of view. It isn't.

OK, I know some of you argue that you are justified in not considering a male nanny because of the potential risk of sexual abuse, and obviously the safety and welfare of your child always has to be a concern. BUT, there is no evidence to suggest that male childminders are more likely than other groups of people to abuse a child. There IS evidence that the abuser is often known to a child, but that evidence shows the abuser is often a family member or a close family friend, that this is just as (if not more) likely a scenario than the abuser being a nanny or teacher or other person close to the child but not a family member. As I said before, what are you going to do then, stop your child from having contact with all men?

And isn't it against all that women have worked for in terms of equality and getting men to do their fair share in the house if we become suspicious of all men who want to work with children? How about if you are single and get a new partner - are you going to be suspicious of him simply because it has been known for paedophiles to become close to single women with daughters? Surely in that situation you would judge someone as you find them - and not simply dismiss them for being a man who likes children - and make sure your child feels comfortable with the person. Shouldn't you therefore treat a male nanny the same? There is someone on this board who said they would consider a male nanny despite having been abused by there father. I had a physically abusive mother, but that doesn't mean I don't trust my mother-in-law with my baby (although I don't trust my mother with her!)

Most of us on here have said how fantastic men close to us are with our children. Earlybird's daughter does not have a father around or surrogate father figure. It is hard when discussing this not to make generalisations, but I think if anything men can be sillier with chidren when playing with them. And I like that they can offer a different view on things. Also, given that women who have broken the glass ceiling have often had to work harder than their male peers in order to get to the same place, the same may be true of the male nanny. He is going to be aware that people might be suspicious of him or see him as not a 'natural' fit for nannying, and he might work really hard to dispel those assumptions.

One more thing on gut reactions; having a gut reaction to an idea in principle should not be confused with having a gut reaction to an individual. It might be that you meet a male nanny and come away feeling uncomfortable about hiring him. Go with that feeling. But you are not justified in feeling uncomfortable without even meeting someone OR being able to rationalise those feelings.

Can I just point out that a police check (on anyone, male or female) will only reveal if someone has a previous conviction. It will not indicate whether or not allegations have been made against someone or if concerns have been expressed about someone's behaviour. By all means, do the check, but also investigate references etc.

Have never needed a nanny, so I can't offer an opinion on selecting one. I don't think I would dismiss a candidate out of hand simply because he happened to be male. I often say that if my husband ever lost his job, we'd open up a nursery because he is one of the best people I know with children!! One of the most highly respected teachers at my daughter's pre-school is male. Was very disappointed that she wasn't in his class.

Yes, I'd have a male nanny, but only if he was good looking

Seriously, I haven't read this thread all the way through, so I apologise if I repeat anything said before. I trained as an infant school teacher, and one of my collegues was the only male teacher in the school. Because he taught a year 1 class people sometimes made the assumption that he was either gay or a paedophile. He used to feel that parents were watching him and he had t be really careful around the children, whiach I always found terribly sad.

I would have a male nanny if a. I could affordf one and b if I felt DS was comfortable with him and that they had a good rapport. Th fact that the nanny in question in the first post was with his previous family for a while would make me think he was a fairly safe bet. I would be much happier with his experience than some dappy girl just out of school or whatever.

Women can be equally as cruel and perverted as men.

I would say it is different to a gut reaction on hiring a woman/different race/whatever if the safety of your child is involved.

Just thought about how that might sound. What I mean is that if a silly big guffawing white sexist/racist bloke (like the one I used to work with) said he wasnt hiring a woman or black person (for whatever reason), that would be different as there is no safety issue IYSWIM.