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?

Honestly, I sometimes think these mansplaining feminist forum squatting men have such charmed lives they have to play act at being oppressed to give them something to do.

Waits for handmaiden before calling "House".

Human relationships operate on an individual level
But also within a class dynamic

a woman can be sexist when she bins an application for a childcare job based on [male sex]
No she can't, she might be 'reverse sexist' or 'inverse sexist' like you get reversed racism or inverse snobbery - which goes against the prevalent dynamics but could not exist outside them.

a black gangster can be racist when he drops a breeze block on a white boy's head because he hates white people.

Likewise with reverse racism.

Both hold enormous power over that individual's life.

Now you have suddenly jumped from the motive of the perpetrator to the victim. That is where your argument gets confused. Of course being barred or killed because of your sex or race is an enormously powerful experience for that individual, but it is within the wider dynamic. The hatred of white people is a reactionary hatred not systemic, as is the hatred/mistrust of men. Call it inverse or reverse if you like, but calling it 'gender bigotry', or 'sexism' is wrong.

Back to school for you!

Waits for handmaiden before calling "House".

Surely you have better things to do than playing feminist bingo on a feminist forum?

I'm a Childminder (ofsted registered to provide care in the childrens own home, and also for overnight care, ..... which I do sole charge for full weeks at a time as respite for children with e.b.d and other additional needs, while parents have a break), I'm also a Cub Scout Leader who takes them camping for full weekends at a time, 3 times a year .... more importantly I'M A MAN!!! Everything I've just described is apparanly a recipe for, risk, suspicious, allegations, society's predjudism etc. I've got qualifications in Childcare and more CRB's than soft ned (which doesn't automatically mean someones "suitable" to be in contact with children). The way I look at it, It's got to the point now where adults are so petrified of what could happen, the key important reason of why we're there i.e looking after the children gets neglected, and the kids are ones that suffer for it. The nature of what I do requires some security and nurturing for the little ones, a hug when they're upset ... even a hug just to show you care about them or happy to see them, physical contact to keep them and those around them safe when they're throwing a massive wobbler, and for some yes I have had to change them when they've had an accident, I have had to wash their hair cos they've put the entire bottle of shampoo on and can't get it all out. Does this worry me? NOT AT ALL why? Because I went into working with children to provide a stable, secure environment for when parents couldn't be there (work, respite etc.) I think that they deserve the same amount of care that they would get from home, you'll find most parents would be grateful of that commitment to their children, not suspicious. If they've employed you they mist trust you or they wouldn't let you within 100foot of their little ones. Children don't have the shallow minded concept or ability to read into stuff unnecessary like adults do, so as long as I don't do anything innapropriate which I never would cos I'm not like that, why would it ever cross their minds to maliciously lie and make up a scenario that implies something they're not even aware exists at that age. I've been a Cub Leader for 4 years without an issue, and a childminder for 3. All the parents trust me implicitly with their children, and prasie me for the fact that I go that extra mile to look after them properly and provide for what they need emotionally and physically. Parents are grateful that I put my focus and efforts into looking after them properly and not into protecting my from stuff that won't ever be an issue cos i'm not a sick minded person. I childmind more children from the local school than all the female chilldminders in the area, most of them are in my Cub pack and parents allow me to take camping 3 times a year, that's beacause my repuation and hard work has gained me parents trust, respect in the community and support against prejudism from others that don't know me that well. If all the males who can potentially make fantastic teachers, nannies etc. could just focus on what they set out achieve as a career, and try and ignore the small minded numptys standing in their way, in time they'll get the work and make a good name for themselves, which soon shuts up the minority who need to get a grip on reality. Males aint gonna be accused for something they haven't done ..... and if they're not the sort of person that does sick things to children, there shouldn't be a worry. The day I get banged up for something I haven't done is the day I give up childcare, and give up on life in general as when it gets to that point I don't think I wanna be in a cruel twisted world like that anymore. Morbid I know, but hopefully it'll never happen if all the decent men out there stick together and prove to the world they were wrong!

I totally agree that if you have a man looking after your young children, that man has to be able to provide physical care. Young children need to be hugged, changed, cleaned up, etc.

And of course there are men who look after young children who do so with very good intentions and do the job very well. But men are much more like to sexually abuse young children than women. So having a male childcarer does increase the risk to small children. And I totally understand some mothers not being prepared to take that risk

So men can't be nursery workers, nannys, primary teachers, nurses, doctors? Because it might upset the mothers? Don't be ridiculous. A man is just as capable as a women and it is sexism to suggest otherwise. What needs to happen is that the prejudice of the women needs to be challenged. Most abuse happens within the home environment, with someone who is in the family - that's where the work needs to start.

YY mydog

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 - 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