Male nannies/childminders

[Lottapianos]

Just listening to a discussion on the radio about male nannies. The general feeling is that having men work with young children is a good thing. No argument there!

However, the reason given is not because men are 50% of the population and it's good for children to spend time with both men and women so they can start to see both sexes as equal. The reason is that 'men and women play differently' - men are more 'rough and tumble' and kids love that Oh and some boys are growing up without a man in the home and they need a male role model in order to develop normally and not grow up gay. Or something

I really do get sick of all this essentialism - men do this, women do that - in the same way as I can't stand people talking about how boys and girls are inherently different. I really think that putting people into boxes based on their biological sex is stifling and unfair - what happens to people who don't 'perform' in the way they are expected?

Any thoughts on this issue?

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Yes there are a lot of men in the UK.

What percentage of men do you think sexually molest children and what statistics are you using for this?

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

I have already pointed out that it is a falsa analogy. About 15? men were suicide bombers. I wish only 15 men had sexually raped and abused children!

[OneMoreChap]

EBAL I just want them to understand the real risks.

Quite so, and presumably leave it up to them to make their choice, and not be dictated to by law?

Incidentally, how do you address the concerns of rosabud

If you are going to argue that there is an incresed risk rom a certain group (men as abusers therefore riskier to employ male childminder than female childminder) which justifies certain other groups from not taking that risk (mothers who must put their child's safety above everything) then you must also, logically, make that argument in other situations too. Therefore the fact that some groups pose a greater risk in some situations than others (MUslims more likely to be suicide bombers on planes/ black men more likely to shoplift/ women more likely to need time off work due to pregnancy) means that you must accept other groups are justified in not wishing to take this greater risk (mothers with children refusing to get on planes with Muslims/ shopkeepers not allowing black men in their shops/ companies not employing women)

I've met women who are reluctant to employ other women because of maternity issues; two of them eventually decided to alter the skill profiles and fill the post with agency staff.

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

Sorry typo, yes 56.1. It is still a lot of men

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Eh? I didn't say 65 million adults. I said 56.1m people.

I agree that of the 56.1m not all are of working age. Even doubling the percentage I calculated, however, gives a very small percentage.

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

The document of labour statistics is simply to say that your stat using 65 million adults is not helpful. Many of those 65 million are young children or very elderly adults.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Eats, I am sure that not all men or women who abuse children are caught and convicted. But presumably all who are caught and convicted end up on the register and since those are the people against whom a case had been proven, it seemed a reasonable basis for an argument. What statistics are the basis of your argument?

You have linked to a document about labour statistics - I don't understand the relevance of this.

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

OneMoreChap - it is down to mothers to decide what they want to do. I am not dictating anything. I just want them to understand the real risks.

Snatch - You know as well as I do that the majority of men who sexually abuse children do not end up in the sex offender list. And no 37,255 adults is not insignificant. You do know that 12 million people are under 16? Actually only 25.07 million people in the UK are in employment.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_254579.pdf

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

EBAL, the NSPCC link doesn't give any split between male and female offenders. However, it does say that 37,255 adults were registered as sex offenders (against adults or children). There are 56.1m people in the UK. So 0.066% of the entire population are registered sex offenders. Obviously some of these will be female and some will have offended against adults.

Now do you see why people are arguing that very very few men commit sexual offences against children?

[OneMoreChap]

EBAL so presumably, your suggestion is we should have fewer males working in this area; or perhaps a campaign saying males are x% more likely to abuse your child, so beware of males working in childcare?

That's fine, but it is going to close an awful lot of doors when - as pointed out - we take a statistical based approach to general risk reduction.

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

This link is to an article in The Guardian about how sexual abuse of children is more common than we like to think.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/13/sexual-abuse-children-difficult-truth

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

The NSPCC website gives useful statistics. But the amount of men who sexually abuse children is not as rare as you seem to imagine. How many Muslims have blown up planes - 15 men? Really not comparable to the number of men sexually abusing children.

www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html

[Mydogsleepsonthebed]

Eats - that is a load of bollocks. Proportionately very few men abuse children.

[rosabud]

OK. What about being blown up on a plane then? Especially if you are travelling with your children?

Or, indeed, driving your children down the motorway when other, younger, more reckless drivers are around? Either activity could result in your child's death. One highly unlikely (being blown up on a plane) the other (killed in a sad and tragic motorway accident) probably more likely than being sexually abused. So where does death stand on the "horrible things that could happen to your child" register. Worse than sexual abuse? Better??

Honestly from the sublime to the ridiculous. Bowing out.

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

Theft is not the same as child abuse. I will take much more risks in terms of money and property than I ever would in terms of children potentially being abused.

And i dont see that as contradictory at all

[rosabud]

You can't balance such views because they are not blanced views in the first place, that's the point!!! Ok so theft is not as bad as child abuse so it's ok to risk letting a group of people known to be more likely to steal into shops but not to risk a group known to be more likely to abuse anywhere near children. What about blowing up planes then? More or less terrible than child abuse?? I was using such arguments to show how illogical your "but there's a risk" argument is.

And the alanced point is that the vast majority of black men do not steal. And the vast majority of Muslims don't blow up planes. And the vast majority of women don't have lots of time of for pregnancy and child care.

And the vast majority of men are not child abusers.

And Eats one male childminder posting how much he loves his job and how good he is at it may not mean that other men are not child abusers but not everyone on this thread is as obsessed with that as you are. I was commenting that it was nice to hear the positive comments from the male childminder because I thought it was informative and interesting in light of the original post which was about men working in childcare NOT men being child abusers.

[Mydogsleepsonthebed]

And yet the most recent scandals involving nurseries I can think of of the top of my head have involved women abusing young children

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

Yes because it is in the home that men generally have access to young children. Very few men work in childcare with young children.

[Mydogsleepsonthebed]

It is also a fact that most abuse takes place in the home and not in childcare settings.

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

Mydog - It is a fact that men are more likely to sexually abuse or rape small children than women. This is not my opinion, but simply a fact.

[Mydogsleepsonthebed]

Eats that is a grossly offensive and nasty statement. I hope you never have cause to need emergency medical help where there is only a male doctor or nurse available.

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

A male childminder posting saying he is good at his job does not take away from the fact that young children are a greater risk of sexual assualt or rape from a male childcarer. That is a fact. What any parent descides to do with that fact is up to them.

[rosabud]

Very encouraging to read the post from the male childminder. Eats your circular argument is getting you nowhere. If you are going to argue that there is an incresed risk rom a certain group (men as abusers therefore riskier to employ male childminder than female childminder) which justifies certain other groups from not taking that risk (mothers who must put their child's safety above everything) then you must also, logically, make that argument in other situations too. Therefore the fact that some groups pose a greater risk in some situations than others (MUslims more likely to be suicide bombers on planes/ black men more likely to shoplift/ women more likely to need time off work due to pregnancy) means that you must accept other groups are justified in not wishing to take this greater risk (mothers with children refusing to get on planes with Muslims/ shopkeepers not allowing black men in their shops/ companies not employing women). Of course, none of that can be justified, nor is it sensible or practical. Having joined a debate on men working in childcare with the line, "but there is an increased risk they could be abusers," instead of embracing all the many positive reasons as to why it wold be great to have more male childminnders, is like coming into a debate thirty years ago on why employers should offer more opportunities to women with the line, "but they could have lots of time off for pregnancy and childcare," without thinking fo all the reasons why having more women in the workforce would be a very good thing.

At best your whole point of view on this and your accompanying arguments have been disappointing and reductionist.