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?

I think it's FAR more important to assess risks based on evidence and in the context rather than relying on assumptions which can lull us into a false sense of security and place children at greater risk of harm in the end.

My brother used to be the equivalent of a county councillor in the US and on the education committee. There was an awful incident where a female gym teacher was suspected of sexually abusing girls, and was convicted on two counts in the end. Quite rightly, citizens were outraged by the crime and breach of trust, but many were also very bigoted. The education committee was heavily lobbied to ban the employment of Lesbian and gay teachers because they posed a risk to children. That would have been illegal and despite some councillors also wanting this, it didn't happen. What my brother pushed for was more robust systems for screening teachers before appointment, ongoing monitoring and procedures to reduce the risk of any adult in the school being able to harm children in their care - not just in relation to sexual abuse either.

And, in my view, that's what needs to be continually reviewed and improved with respect of all professions and all settings working with children and vulnerable adults. Assess and minimise the actual risks. Basing policy and practice on fear runs the risk of excluding the wrong people and placing children at greater risk by letting folks through because they "look the part."

As for the airplane situation, why on earth if the airline had a policy on not seating unaccompanied minors next to single men did they put a child next to a man in the first place? Furthermore, surely it was their responsibility to move the child and not ask the man to move. They wouldn't have needed to explain why they were being moved, no fingers of blame would have been pointed and all would have been tickity boo.

I would also love to understand the position of Eats and those who agree with her re the allowing of people with brown/dark skin onto aircraft. The majority of Muslims have brown/dark skin, and most suicide bombers are Muslims. Would they recommend segregation, e.g whites-only aircraft? Or even banning them from planes, as they can still hijack them and fly them into buildings.

This point was raised earlier, but as usual seems to have been skipped over. Is it too difficult? I don't expect an answer, but I will give you another opportunity to answer the question - just in case you missed it first time around.

No you know I wouldnt support that - but it is not equivalent. The equivalent would be if I was arguing that men should not be allowed onto planes or there should be men only planes. And I have not argued that position at all.

How about this as an equivalent?

What about if a plane company refused to hire Muslims due to the majority of suicide bombers being Muslim? Would that be an acceptable way to reduce the risk?

No it is not an equivalent. I have said I have no issue with men working with children or men being hired to work on planes.

And you do knopw suicide bombers are incredibly rare while men who sexually abuse children are not?

So then, if I understand you correctly, all we need to do is move Muslim passengers to another seat?

Oh, and can you tell me how many potential Muslim suicide bombers there are please? Unless you work for Mossad/CIA/MI6, how do you come by this information?

Wasn't a muslim man at the centre of a hoo haa on a plane a few years back? The other passengers refused to travel with him or something?

The problem with making it about children, women and men, is that approximately half the children grow up to be men. How do we put women and children first, and then turn around to half the children at some magical age and say 'Now, you, over to the other side. And if you decide to work with children, it's absolutely ok for us to look at you with suspicion. Don't get upset about it, your feelings aren't as important as they used to be when you were below the magical age.'

If you are true to yourself *EatsBrains" surely you would advocate men never working with children, as there is a risk that they will abuse children. Yet earlier on you said "I am fine with men working with young children, but I am also fine with mothers who do not want their young children to be looked after by men." Surely that would be putting children at risk?

This position is flawed as is the feminist movement if it is not about equality but the advancement of women in place of men. Women have been and still are treated badly by society but two wrongs dont make a right.

What we see here is a flawed position taken by people who have read radical literature and taken it as gospel, rather than thinking it through for themselves. A bit like fundamentalist religion really, which is ironic considering the turn that the thread has taken.

When do male children become not priority?

I assume 18?

I think it is wrong to assume that all men in these jobs are capable of being peadophiles, surely and unfortunetly woman nannies bear the same rich.
Has everyone forgotten the lastest spate of women peadophiles ?

Every man & woman in job positions such as these should be treated as equals.
Male midwifes, although a different thread altogether i have found to be really helpful.
Prejudice is long gone with the dark ages, lets not bring it back!!

Risk

Have to say, this thread does explain why so few people are willing to call themselves feminists. More people can see the value in striving for equality.

I'm a staunch feminist but I'm not remotely interested in female supremacy, I want men and women to be viewed and treated equally. I think Eats' views on this thread are possibly well meant but misguided and discriminatory.

Absolutely Empusa. Thank you for bringing some sanity to this thread.

I can only identify with a feminism that strives for equality. And I am also intelligent enough to know that equal does not always mean the same. Women don't have to become 'like men' to become treated as equal.

The NHS treats all people equally (for example), it does not treat us all for cancer if we haven't got cancer.

Oh and I also dispute that only women are able to put children first. Why aren't their fathers making choices about child are in eats analogies?

Quite. Equal parenting. Not 'what the mother wants'.

You don't really need me to explain that equal division of childcare by sex would go a long way to dismantling gendered barriers in every conceivable social situation, including employment (not just in childcare professions but across the board, in terms of removing (cultural) barriers to employment of women of child bearing age (if that is their wont), do you, eats? Meaning a huge change in government policies wrt employment and pensions etc?

Why is it an important way to fight male domination?

I mean, you could rewrite wifework, for a start, just in terms of gendered expectations.

It's the removal of expectations about a gendered divide.

But we've been round this buoy before on fwr. Parental care is an emotive topic, particularly when separation is involved, and the current status quo to leave the children with the mother is largely predicated on her being the primary carer. To change this status quo in favour of equal parenting is an alarming proposition if you only pay lip service to equality.

Because fundamentally being a feminist is about putting children and women first rather than men

Not to me. It means equality. Men taking equal share of the child care and men being able to do all jobs. (and the same for women).

Definitely equal parenting with the woman not being the 'superior' parent.

Because fundamentally being a feminist is about putting children and women first rather than men

But who comes first, women or children? Should we give women the right to choose to have a male babysitter if they are potensially putting their child at risk?

On a positive note though, I am glad to see the overwhelming opinion is that in finding the feminist position ludicrous. I understand that that the concerns are well meaning but you could say the same about a well meaning racist. Feminists will say most rapists and abusers are men. Racists will say most terrorists are Islamic or media/government are Jewish or Blacks commit most gun crime/dont do well in IQ tests. Two sides of the same coin really. They damage their cause by being so extreme in their views.

Eats doesn't represent 'the' feminist position. Just her own opinion. Feminists don't speak with one voice on many, many issues.

Zippey, as chickens said, eats doesn't represent 'the' feminist position. That's the point I've been making.

I am a feminist.

I believe in equality.

I believe that men and women should share childcare 50/50, both paid and as sahp.

Please don't make the mistake of believing that eats speaks for all feminists.

You find eats position ludicrous. Not the feminist position.

(I am assuming you are referring to eats pov as 'the' feminist one, as she espoused it that way herself)

Incorrectly.

Well re Eats 'representing' the feminist POV, thankfully she doesn't. It would appear she represents herself and nothing more. It;s a view that 'represents', possibly, some feminists on a social website. Of all the feminists I know, work with, and post with round here, it has no effect in RL.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Tue 11-Sep-12 15:45:04
I am fine with men working with young children, but I am also fine with mothers who do not want their young children to be looked after by men.

Bizarre.

Appalling.

What a bigoted, trashy thing to say.

Compare with:

"I'm fine with employing women, but there is a much higher rate of women leaving work when they have kids, than men when their partners have kids. I'm fine with companies that don't want to employ women".