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?

Basically, blackcurrants I apologise if you think I'm antagonistic to you. I do not intend to be.

Your views, however, are fair game for scrutiny.
Pretending I think it's all right to [paraphrase] say "W-e-l-l, yes; I suppose male childminders or teachers are all very well, but I wouldn't have one looking after my kid, knowhaitmean?" would be wrong.

It needlessly stirs up fears about paedophiles, men, and keeps men out of the professions.

You particularly know that assaults are more likely from those known than strangers, which is why I thought your [paraphrase] "Well, I know he's a man, but I know him so that's OK" was rather... odd.

LurkingAndLearningLovesOrange Wed 12-Sep-12 09:30:09
That McCann comment was a really low blow
Wasn't intended to be, so again, I apologise. It's about risk assessment - I know that in FWR it's a dirty word, but I never, ever left my young children unattended, and I remain astonished that they did so. If that had been "Sharon, off the estate", they would have been even more hugely reviled.

My risk assessment in that case would have been, better a babysitter than leaving them alone. Even a male babysitter.

OneMoreChap

I think your scrutiny of my views perhaps requires more scrutiny, as you've missed what I'm saying. :)

But perhaps I am not being clear, so let me rephrase:

I use male babysitters and would be happy for DS to have male daycare carers because these individuals are carefully referenced, background-checked, and continuously monitored. - as any and all carers (including female carers) of my children are and always will be.

When I say "I know him" I mean I know his background, security history, training, etc. As I do all of DS's daycare workers. I actually read the fine print, interview the manager, look into their training certs and when they expire, or whatever. That's what "I know him" means in the context of the past you're quoting. Not just, y'know, he's a friend of my Auntie Kevin, so he's fine.

blackcurrants Yep, sorry, I had missed what you were saying.

I saw:
I DO let a male teenager babysit my toddler,... because I know this particular individual better than my parents knew my male babysitter, have known him for years, and because I have other precautions in place which my own parents neglected ...I do not think our babysitter's gender makes him a threat because I know him.

I didn't realise:
I use male babysitters ... because these individuals are carefully referenced, background-checked, and continuously monitored. - as any and all carers (including female carers) of my children are and always will be.

When I say "I know him" I mean I know his background, security history, training,... interview the manager, look into their training certs and when they expire

I withdraw unreservedly, but damn, you must find it hard to get babysitters.

I'm glad you now understand what I've been saying.

And it's never been a problem, oddly enough. Must just be lucky where I live.

We just used to get friends' kids from church; or friends. None of them had any of the stuff you have in place for all yours. [Mind you it was a long time ago].

I think the big overarching point I'm trying to make on this thread is: I don't think that men who want to work with children, who are willing to be subject to general social distrust and scrutiny, then to train, pass rigorous checks, be continuously monitored, etc are any more of a threat to my children then the women who follow the same procedures (minus the social distrust). I do think that unqualified 'help' can be a real danger, as that tends to be how predators slip through the cracks. I think I am probably hyper-aware of 'pedo danger' as a survivor of child sexual assault, but that doesn't mean I stop my children being cared for by young men. It means I stop my children being cared for by people whom I have not thoroughly, painstakingly researched.

I know statistically men are more likely to sexually assault children than women are, and I don't think we should pretend that isn't true. I don't think 'shh don't say that, what about the poor men!' is a good response to that fact. But the answer, to my mind, is to be as careful as you possibly can about who takes care of your children; not to immediately assign all women to the category 'safe' and all men to the category 'dangerous.'

Finally, I'll say that tossing around accusations of 'genderphobia' is unhelpful. Women and children who have been raped and/or abused by predatory men have every reason to be phobic - that is, to fear them, in the abstract at least, if not in person. It's not fair to the individual men who are perfectly unthreatening, but it is an appropriate response to the levels of violence and harassment and abuse that women and children face at the hands of men. Men who don't like that fact do, I'm afraid, have to lump it. Good men who observe that fact tend to respond that it is a problem with our patriarchal society and how that damages women and children, not something that people should just shut up about because it makes them feel sad.

Yes, OneMoreChap - that's how my parents' managed, too. In fairness to them, they had not really any idea of people molesting children, being good, trusting people who loved children they couldn't imagine it happening. I really can - vividly - and so I am more cautious. Much more cautious.

Most of the teens we know who babysit have infant/toddler CPR qualifications, and some other babysittingy crb-like thing from running summer camps for younger children or being in scouts etc. It seems to come as 'standard' in this part of north America, so it's not odd to look around for a bit more. Plus, of course, I use a daycare and a lot of the daycare workers live locally and are willing to babysit on an evening now and then, for adequate compensation. I imagine I could find cheaper, but then, what price peace of mind?

Sadly, blackcurrants I think the point you are making is:

men who want to work with children [expect] to be subject to general social distrust and scrutiny

and I do think that is genderphobic, so the accusation wasn't lightly tossed. It was pinned to you.

I've been pursued down the street by a gang of young ethnic men; yes, for a while I was cautious. Do I distrust men of that ethnicity? Nope. Just silly young men.

Women and children who have been raped and/or abused by predatory men have every reason to be phobic - that is, to fear them, in the abstract at least, if not in person. It's not fair to the individual men who are perfectly unthreatening, but it is an appropriate response to the levels of violence and harassment and abuse that women and children face at the hands of men.

Perhaps - and only perhaps - for those women and children; but certainly not for all, particularly not those who don't share either your life experience of worldview.

Men who don't like that fact do, I'm afraid, have to lump it.

No, they don't. They can call you out for it, and watch for the increase of men being driven out of professions...

Good men who observe that fact tend to respond that it is a problem with our patriarchal society

No, men who agree with your perspective might say that; that they don't share your perspective does not make them bad men, just not ones who share your view.

and how that damages women and children, not something that people should just shut up about because it makes them feel sad.

where does anyone say anything like "people should just shut up about because it makes them feel sad"

Saying the sort of things you do, will at least make the nod-and-wink "all men are paedos" conclusion easier to jump to; and it is wrong.

The conclusion "all men are paedos'' is wrong. The fact that men, statistically, abuse and molest children more than women do, is not wrong.

So what do we do with the fact?

Do we (1) analyse it as part of a pattern of the systematic oppression of women, and work to challenge and change the system that makes that fact true? (A feminist response)

or do we (2) 'call people out' for mentioning that fact and say that mentioning that fact is 'driving men out of professions' (your apparent response).

I mean, come on. (2) is just defensiveness, good men being insistent that they're not bad men. I understand it (people talking about racial oppression make me want to defensively insist upon my total lack of racism) but it's not actually helpful. Privilege exists, and defensiveness occurs when privilege is pointed out.

I said that men who work with children are subject to more social distrust and scrutiny. I didn't say that it was right or fair. I speculated as to why that might be, and noted that blaming the distrust and scrutiny rather than the cause for that distrust and scrutiny is, eventually, counter-productive.

'work to challenge and change the system' is exactly what the thread has been suggesting. So, to encourage men into child caring roles (paid and unpaid), whether that be by how we raise our sons (alongside our daughters) and lobby for policy change.

I don't see anyone arguing against 1, blackcurrants. But I don't see 1 as being compatible with an overarching distrust of men in caring situations (whether checked to the nth degree or not) by a large number of posters on this thread. The 'men are dangerous and I can back it up with statistics' type post is complete anathema to an attempt to change the status of men in society (and ergo the status of women). It's feck all to do with being sad, although I am.

I do agree about the north American babysitting institution though. It is much better than the ad-hoc uk nonsense, which is complicated by random nspcc advice and bizarre governmental sound bites.

Dd1 is taking a babysitting course next month, and ds1 will in two years. He is fabulous with small people.

I said : where does anyone say anything like "people should just shut up about because it makes them feel sad"

I'd also said in response to your
Women and children who have been raped and/or abused by predatory men have every reason to be phobic - that is, to fear them, in the abstract at least, if not in person. It's not fair to the individual men who are perfectly unthreatening, but it is an appropriate response to the levels of violence and harassment and abuse that women and children face at the hands of men.

by saying
Perhaps - and only perhaps - for those women and children; but certainly not for all, particularly not those who don't share either your life experience of worldview.

You're suggesting a garment cut for you should fit everybody. It doesn't.

[shrug] We appear to be talking past each other. I'm talking about something systematic. You're saying that I'm extrapolating from my own experience and other people will/may/do feel differently. We don't agree but this feels like a relatively minor point, so I'm going to leave it.

Madwoman I neither condone nor share the 'overarching distrust of men in caring professions' on this thread - as I have said, repeatedly. But nor am I going to pretend the statistics aren't there. I think you can understand that the statistics are there and work from that starting point without ending up not trusting or using men in caring professions.

Oh quite. But the way the statistics are used to introduce fear and mistrust of all men makes it very difficult to work towards the removal of gendered stereotypes. So, there must be a more positive way of advocating change towards greater (and ultimately equal) male participation in caring roles, whilst acknowledging the stats. Not using them as an excuse to move forward, and to reinforce existing stereotypes.

I'm not saying that was your position (or indeed anyone else specifically) just that there seemed to be an all pervasive view of 'men are abusers.' so even men in existing paid childcare positions were being viewed with mistrust. And the whole 'security checked' thing is so problematic, that it is being used to justify both sides of the argument. On the one hand, security checks just mean an abuser hasn't been caught yet, and on the other, that a carer that has been security checked is fine. I'm happy with the 'minimizing risk' argument in that context, but not having men in childcare has also been called 'minimizing risk'.

The topic is so emotive, (for obvious reasons) but I can't seem to get my head around the fact that it seems that the fwr board is espousing (at least an undercurrent of) daily-mail-esque paedophile hysteria.

Abuse is a terrible thing, and minimizing the risks are obviously a good thing. But I'm a little uncomfortable (and, lol, sad) that the vast majority of men are being demonised. And that isn't a 'what about the menz' because I am largely looking at the wider ramifications of that demonization (women are still defined as carers. Men can't care because they are dangerous) and the reinforcement of the status quo as a result. No change. No working towards anything.

There is of course no magic wand that will remove the hysteria. There will still be threads about 9yo boys in women's changing rooms at the pool. Dads will still go ballistic when their son picks up a dolly lest it turn him gay on contact.

It's obviously a step too far in the current western context to expect anything else. But we can all look towards utopia, if not work towards it, I suppose.

I love you, madwoman

namechangeguy Tue 11-Sep-12 17:13:28
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.

I'm just thankful that only a small minority believe such rubbish, and heartened to read so many comments on here expressing disgust and able to see the damage such thinking can do to the cause.

All groups have people like that don't they? Cycling fundamentalists, trans fundamentalists, men's rights fundamentalists, cookery fundamentalists etc. So long as 95% of people think men in childcare is good, I and other chaps can still get a job doing it.

Boys 9and girls of course) need more male role models especially in areas where the prevalent 'class' is single mothers. A positive role model never did boys or girls and harm.
My DD was abused but i would no more view a male teacher with suspicion than a female teacher.

Hate to break it to ya'll .. but there are female abusers, too.

oops thought there was only one page hehe

Late to the party, but I just wanted to say, eats, you seem to think you speak for feminists. You say 'Actually the position I am taking is a feminist one. Because fundamentally being a feminist is about putting children and women first rather than men.' I don't grudge you the right to express your opinions and I'm sure you're right you are prolific and have a big influence, but you do not speak for me and I do not honestly believe this is a feminist position.

I would expect everyone working professionally with children to have gone through the relevant checks, of either gender. I am delighted that DS1 has a male primary school teacher this year as it broadens his role models, so I disagree with Eats also.

I agree with the point up thread that if more fathers did more childcare, it would be seen as less "unusual" for men to choose a childcaring profession.

A friend of mine got sarky comments for helping out as a one off with a boys' youth group (in the presence of the usual organisers), even though he is CRB checked for his dayjob. Not very nice.

genderphobic
It sounds like an extreme title for someone who hates gender roles or something. Like if you don't agree that blue is for boy and pink is for girls, you are "genderphobic".

I think many posters on this thread need to go back to basics of understanding the prevalent power dynamics at work and how they interplay with privileged entitlement, class vulnerability and the exploitation and abuse of that vulnerability.

Using 'sexist' to describe behaviour towards men is crap. As is using 'racist' about white people is crap.

Get with the programme all you people that think its 'just as bad' to criticise/hold the powerful to account as it is for the powerful to abuse and exploit those who they wield power over.

"The programme" is wrong. It was always wrong. The ferociously dynamic interaction of 7 billion of the most complex machines on the planet cannot be seperated into a static picture of "the oppressed" and "the oppressors". Power relationships frequently change on a macro level, as they have with regards gender dramatically in the last 50 years. Male childcarers and the bigotry they must face on a daily basis (not least from the females who dominate the workplace around them) is a good example of this.

But regardless, the separation of the world into black and white has no place outside of a disney film or religious scripture. Human relationships operate on an individual level, and within this a woman can be sexist when she bins an application for a childcare job based on gender bigotry and a black gangster can be racist when he drops a breeze block on a white boy's head because he hates white people. Both hold enormous power over that individual's life. I'm sure your world view is comforting in its simplicity but it really is absolute horseshit and its about time you realised this.