Am I being unreasonable to question why preschool hasn't informed me that a male preschool worker is helping my daughter with toileting?

[GaqiNa]

This is a very sensitive topic.
My daughter is attending preschool and yesterday I found out a male worker has been helping her with toileting.
I had no idea there was a male worker looking after my child in the first place as he's not listed in the email the preschool has sent to me. I thought there were only female workers looking after my daughter and now out of the blue I find out there's a male in the room.
He's not listed on there website, I can't find any information about this man anywhere. I have seen him randomly when I pick up and drop off my child but I never thought he's looking after my daughter as he's not even listed as part of the team.
I feel I've been deceived by the pre-school not letting me know who's actually looking after my child.
Am I being unreasonable?

It absolutely isn't normal and I'm so tired of reading posts from people who don't see a problem with a man assisting little girls in the toilets and changing nappies.

I've actually worked in nurseries, alongside men. They are all wonderful with children and no more likely to harm your child than a woman would be. Every one who works there has a deep background check, and all doors are left open while the bathroom is in use. On top of which, unless the child is special needs, children above the age of 3 are all expected to clean themselves. And its strictly prohibited after the age of 4. If your child doesn't know how to wipe themselves, they shouldn't be in school.

Then women shouldn't be changing little boy nappies.

Actually quite rarely. Its 99% more likely to be a relative or family friend.

Why not? Your logic is flawed - it's not an opposite sex to the child issue. Anyone can change anyone, UNLESS they don't have consent. That's really it.

If you would be happy with it, crack on - no one's making decisions for you, just themselves.

All the background check proves is that they haven't been caught yet.

You can deny statistics all you like, that just proves you shouldn't be in charge of any kind of safeguarding either.

The incidence of women sexually abusing babies is vanishingly low.

Women do not tend to be sexual abusers.

Men, on the other hand, are known to be sexual abusers of babies and children, and paedophiles frequently seek jobs where they'll be able to access them.

You're being naive if you think this doesn't happen.

Just look at the stats, no one's making things up about men. Personally, I like men, I'm married to one. I get along more with men than women but I'm not naive

FFS you know what the concern is with men in nurseries. The unease and worry is a deep seated biological impulse to protect your child. Men should not be in nurseries whether they’re caring for boys or girls. The statistics which the government does its best to hide prove again and again they are a danger. Your comment is verging on the unpleasant and dismissive of a very real worry. Get men out of nurseries.

Nursery worker who raped and abused toddlers jailed | News UK Video News | Sky News https://share.google/5zzKCgeuh0Ww0Yfwv

'Our children were sitting ducks': Parents demand change as ex-nursery worker gets jail for sex abuse | UK News | Sky News https://share.google/QBAPQn1FHivaJlIhW

If I was a conspiracy theorist I might think they are putting men in nurseries to force women out of the workplace with that sort of comment. You are unpleasant and cavalier about a deep seated fear and worry that many women have about male nursery workers because they know what both the statistics and their instincts to protect are telling them. Get men out of nurseries. The fact that so many hide the fact they employ men is extremely telling. They know the vast majority of mothers hate it.

Nonsense

Who is “they,” the largely female nursery managers who employ said men?

Refusing to employ someone exclusively on the basis of sex would be illegal discrimination.

So first, we’d have to make it legal to do so, which would likely ultimately be worse for women when that change in law was used to exclude them from male dominated industries.

The discussion is around nurseries not school. I don’t know how much you are around 4 5 or 6 year kids but many still have trouble wiping properly. Some leave a real mess and some use half a toilet roll and block the loo. Lots hold it till they get home. In any case men are proven statistically to be a danger particularly to pre verbal kids and should not be in nurseries.

Fact not nonsense.

I understand your concerns and it's a shame it has to be this way. The not mentioning him thing is concerning, but other than that I think it's great to have male nursery workers, who can be good role models for the boys. Otherwise, it's not great if those little boys grow up to think that nappy changing etc is women's work!

Women in male dominated industries are not a danger to little kids. However the point is not totally unreasonable and deserves attention. Many women in certain jobs are a danger in many cases. Firepeople, police, soldiers etc all lower fitness, strengh and stamina requirements to shoehorn in women who are really incapable of doing many aspects of these jobs and can be a danger. We should maybe be more honest about the impact of biology. When you’ve been bugled or assaulted you really don’t want a 5 ft 7 stone pregnant girl knocking on your door.

The danger of widespread law change on discrimination, is that it could very easily back fire.

I agree, I personally wouldn’t have the physical strength to be a fire fighter, or a builder. But that doesn’t mean that all women don’t.

Similarly, many men aren’t nurturing enough for EYFS. Some are.

Look at what women stand to lose, versus men. Men would be excluded from early years care/teaching, and potentially nursing. Women - STEM, the military, public services, secondary level teaching possibly, mechanics, trades such as plumbing etc, senior management roles.

Capable and suitable women would end up excluded from whole work sectors, and yes - men would be out of nurseries.

We are far better suited IMO employing on capability and suitability, rather than ruling out whole groups automatically.

You are NOT being unreasonable to feel uncomfortable about this. A male relative of the owners at my child's pre-school was arrested for SA of the children in his care. It's unfortunate that good men are tarred by male predators but I'd rather that then expose any child to potential abuse. I think early years childcare is an area of employment where men should be positively discriminated against. Yes, there are women who have abused children in these settings but as a ratio, and the fact that we have no choice but to rely on childcare, men should be taken out of the equation. Why can't we say no to men in these circumstances? Ask dads what their opinion is on this matter and I'll guarantee you that the vast majority would want a woman to care for their children over a man.

Not really. Men out nurseries as stats show the danger. All other roles that require fitness, strength, stamina to go back to historic criteria for all men and women. Could also throw in the ability to speak half decent English for customer facing roles.Would not affect the vast majority of jobs and certainly not senior management roles. Lots of women would pass these tests but many won’t and shouldn’t be in the jobs. A fair few men wouldn’t pass either. So many tiny or overweight policemen nowadays.

Do you have the specific stats for what percentage of male childcare staff are perpetrators of abusing those in their care?

Not how many have “potential,” or how many men in general abuse children. Specifically and factually how many male nursery staff are there in the UK, and what percentage of them are abusive?

I don’t believe those stats exist, but they’re the ones you’d need to blanket ban men based on risk. You’d have to be able to evidence the risk, specific to that exact situation/environment.

You generally already have to speak English to work in a customer facing role, the police already have fitness requirements. Let’s not just get into blanket bigotry.

What percetage would make you rethink?

How many children do you think should be raped or abused before they become more important than a man's right to have intimate access to children?

The UK doesn't collect those specific stats.
What we do know is:
91.3% of child sexual abuse is carried out by men
In an Australian study, 4% of men admitted a sexual interest in children under 10 and would act on it if they could get away with it.
Men with a sexual interest in children are 2.73 times more likely to work with children than those without.
Men make up 3% of the early years workforce yet 3 have been convicted of sexually abusing children in nursery in the last 6 months

Me rethink? I think you’re confusing me with someone who makes the law.

I’ve got 2 (relevant) perspectives.

1. I have worked in education recruitment for over a decade, and my PP are about how the laws and regulations around safeguarding and employment actually work, not how people would like them to work when they say “just get rid of men in childcare!” That’s not how it works. Someone earlier suggested “you can get a DBS about them,” for example. You can’t, not as an individual concerned parent. How I feel about the laws is by the by, and doesn’t impact how they actually work.

1. Lots of the posts have referred to increased risks to children who are non or preverbal, which is obviously more common in EYFS settings. I have a 9 year old who is preverbal, in precocious puberty and is male. I would prefer his intimate care to be delivered by a man, because it better preserves his dignity. However, that’s not a possibility in the setting he attends, and would be even less likely if men were blanket banned from working with communication limited/vulnerable children.