Parents objecting to male nursery staff changing nappies

[popehilarious]

www.nurseryworld.co.uk/nursery-world/news/1168681/parents-uncomfortable-with-male-practitioners-changing-their-childs-nappy

Hope the clicky link works.
The male staff are usually the key workers who would normally change nappies but some parents object.

I'm not a safeguarding expert but presumably the same rules and policies apply to both sexes of staff? How can a nursery as an employer discriminate duties on the basis of sex, or would this fall under the exemptions (ie asking for same-sex person to do intimate care) where the child is female? I'm a bit muddled about this.

My son had male nursery key workers who were great role models.

Stop spouting crap then. Oh only 2 women a week. That's ok then. Cool.

It's unrealistic to think that we'll ever totally eradicate violence from the human race. When you have millions and millions of couples, you'll have many thousands who are violent. It's inevitable that a small number will end up killing each other. Obviously, women will usually end up losing as men are far stronger.

Obviously, women will usually end up losing as men are far stronger

Is your hypothesis that both partners in the relationship are trying to kill each other but the men win?!?

Or are you saying actually you understand that the vast majority of people killed by their partners are killed by men?

Wow, a lot of misunderstanding of risk on this thread but interesting to see where people's minds go.

Safeguarding is about reducing risk; obviously you can't really eliminate it completely.
Men, as a class, are far more likely to be abusers than women are; however this doesn't really help you assess the risk of an individual man.

In my opinion the benefits of male nursery staff massively outweigh any risk, when combined with standard safeguarding procedures.

However, as SarahTancredi has pointed out, we are not stupid or sexist to consider risks. Parents should consider it a priority to educate themselves about good safeguarding policy in any setting regardless of who is carrying out the care (I am guilty of not asking about this but will do, going forward).

Just to throw another tangent in, any man who isn't permitted to change nappies, who then comes out as a lifelong gender dysphoric who now identifies as female will surely be treated with suspicion? (Not saying this is right of course!) Would that person then be allowed or 'banned' from changing nappies - and would the nursery be in breach of the equalities act? My point is that having responsibilities that are assigned to staff according to their sex will surely conflict against the rights that trans people are so loudly trying to assert at the moment? (similar to what we are seeing with people requesting female HCP and getting a trans woman).

Wow, a lot of misunderstanding of risk on this thread

It statistics, which are very unnatural to the way the human mind works in a lot of cases.

Well the take home.message should really be that MEN need to work on sorting this out. But they wont while women are happy to blame each other for behaviour that we have all been victim to fir insignificant portion of our lives.Even now men are playing the victim over others feeling this way instead if actively condemning or speaking up about all the men who want to remove the right for women to say no and be safe.
Their first thought is "poor me" not anger or disgust at the men that have helped give them the poor name.

Goodness, are you happy with that logic generally? That's just the sort of thing people were saying about profiling terrorists a few years ago!

It's ridiculous. Should the female workers not change baby boys either?

Ffs people we are never going to change double standards with this bullshit happening.

Should the female workers not change baby boys either?

That is not being questioned because it is males that are, as a group, the more dangerous by far. Not females, as a group.

@AncientLights

*Sandman angell84 merely said she was uncomfortable, you are the one leaping to the conclusion that she's talking about paedophiles/rapists/perverts. Why would that be?

There is such a thing as dignity. You seem to have a problem with women being accorded any.*

I have no problem with dignity. Why do you assume I have? I would like to be accorded some too. I'm fed up with the pervasive assumption that men (I am one)who are interested in children and childcare must have some ulterior (possibly sexual) motive whereas women are somehow seen as natural carers.

Men, as a class, are far more likely to be abusers than women are; however this doesn't really help you assess the risk of an individual man.

This is spot-on. The one thing I'd add (and I haven't read the whole thread, so I'm sorry if someone has made this point) is that abusers actively seek out job roles that give them an opportunity to abuse children. They become teachers, priests, sports coaches, doctors. So amongst those professions, the proportion of men who are sex abusers is going to be higher than in the general population - much higher, probably.

And that's why you need to be extra-vigilant with male nursery workers.

Agree with RoyalCorgi.

Parents being wary of the increased risk of sexual abuse by men are not using double standards, they are using statistics.

Parents being wary of the increased risk of sexual abuse by men are not using double standards, they are using statistics

There's a big difference between being aware of an increased risk and refusing men point blank.

Just to say the last person I heard of locally who was making and distributing indecent photos was a women. Stacy Dooley looked at paedophilia in Philippians who handed over the children to the abusers. the women. In Japan inappropriate photos were being taken off the children but who facilitated this, the women. Who led teenage girls to the Rochdale gang, that's right a girl.( But I would say she was a vitim herself.)

Making and distributing photos for their consumption by...
Led girls to be abused by....

Things you happen to have heard about on the media are not really that relevant. We are talking about nursery safeguarding in the UK.

I work as a childminder with my DH. We've been running our childminding business for a long time.

I've only ever been asked once, by a father, if DH would be changing his DD's nappies. No-one has ever asked me if I will be changing their son's nappy.
DH finds this type of discussion bizarre. He's actually only too happy to get out of changing nappies. Some of them are vile; he can't understand how anyone would be turned on by them. Since the Poo Troll made his notorious appearance on MN some years ago, I have been enlightened and I now know that there are some very odd individuals in this world.

DH does not abuse the children in our care. Neither do I. We do protect ourselves, though: our nappy-changing area, while private, is easily overseen when necessary. We both understand why parents may be worried, but we don't accept that only I may change a child's nappy. While parents are free to express this preference, we are also free to explain that we can't work with that restriction.
As for the children themselves, they don't notice or care if whoever changes them is male or female so long as someone gets them out of that nappy before they get nappy rash!

I'm not convinced that most child sexual abusers are male. They may be the most convicted but, for many years, female sexual abuse was a taboo.
I remember when child sexual abuse within the family first became widely known: a 14 year old murder victim called Keeley Barton. Prior to that, most people thought of child sexual abuse in terms of stranger danger, the dirty old man in a mac.
Until the Plymouth nursery case, people simply refused to believe that child sexual abuse could be committed by women.

A few years ago, Kidscape did a report on child sexual abuse by females. It included testimony by victims who were simply not believed, who were told they were mistaken and that their abuse must have been committed by a man.
It makes me question whether we truly know how many abusers are male and how many are female. I worry that, by denying that female abuse takes place, its victims are silenced.

I think, to be safest, safeguarding procedures should be followed by all childcare's, male and female.

I think there are further taboos that are beginning to be broken down. Child sexual abuse committed by children is beginning to be recognised. There is also the idea that some people seem to hold that paedophiles switch off on their 65th birthdays - why else would they be perfectly happy with the current trend to hold playgroups in care homes, many with minimal checks?

In short, I think that refusal to believe abuse might take place is more dangerous.

"Things you happen to have heard about on the media are not really that relevant. We are talking about nursery safeguarding in the UK."

My point was abuse happens by men and women. I work with male nursery nurses who change nappies and do personal care, same trainng and cheks as anyone else. DoI pecieve more of a risk because of his gender, no.

There's a big difference between being aware of an increased risk and refusing men point blank.

Yes there is. And there is still a statistically higher risk in using a Male carer. Depends what is more important to you, protecting your child from a higher risk or being what you perceive as ‘fair’.

DoI pecieve more of a risk because of his gender, no.

Doesn’t matter whether you choose to perceive a higher risk or not based on sex it is still there.

Depends what is more important to you, protecting your child from a higher risk or being what you perceive as ‘fair’.

Your reply missed the point completely.
It's not about being fair. It's about distinguishing increased risk and absolute certainty.
It's also about not eliminating something because of an increased risk. Because there is also a risk for females, will you forbid women from changing nappies too?
Instead, the way is to assess individual risk and implement measures to reduce it, from any source.
Much better than to distrust any man and then end up being the victim of a female abuser that you were oblivious about.

It's not about fairness, it's about reducing risk effectively.

Is your hypothesis that both partners in the relationship are trying to kill each other but the men win?!?

Not necessarily, but the studies I posted above indicate that violence is reciprocal in approximately 50% of cases and 70% of cases of 'one sided violence' are perpetrated by the female (e.g. hitting their partner who doesn't hit back).

I'm not convinced that most child sexual abusers are male. They may be the most convicted but, for many years, female sexual abuse was a taboo.

I think you're almost certainly right that there are more female sexual abusers than we realise. I've certainly heard of some cases.

However, I think it is stretching it to say that they might make up half or even more of all sexual abusers. There are probably simply more of them than we realise. There are also, almost certainly, more male sexual abusers than we realise, given the amount of sexual abuse that goes unreported.

When it comes to nursery staff - and I know this isn't a popular opinion - I would be very wary about leaving a child in a nursery at all. I think an awful lot of people go into those jobs, not because they like children, but because there isn't anything else for them to do. Jobs aren't well paid and staff turnover is often high. I've also heard from people who have worked in those places and say they wouldn't send their own children to them. The risk of sexual abuse may be a concern, but it's one of many.

I also think there are likely more female abusers than we realise, but I still doubt it's more than male abusers.

However, in terms of emotional abuse, I wouldn't be surprised if females were the main perpetrators. I don't have this on any statistics but just my observations that I've met a lot more really bitter and twisted/passive aggressive mothers than fathers who tell their children fucked up things.

RoyalCorgi
I think an awful lot of people go into those jobs, not because they like children, but because there isn't anything else for them to do.

Yup. And the crappier nurseries will take anybody with a pulse because they count towards the staff:child ratios no matter how bad they are.

just my observations that I've met a lot more really bitter and twisted/passive aggressive mothers than fathers who tell their children fucked up things.

I suspect you're right. Perhaps the same in couples too.

The thing is that emotional and physical abuse is probably more likely than sexual abuse in nurseries (and elsewhere) anyway.

And even if males are the group with an increased risk, what is the actual risk of being sexually abused in nursery? And if measures are in place, then it should virtually be none.