"Poor Men" again..

[mrsbean78]

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/971814-to-not-want-a-male-worker-to-take-my-daug hter?msgid=19866468

Am I missing something? Is it really inappropriate for a woman who has been abused should dare to feel any discomfort whatsoever with a male taking her daughter to the toilet? It can't even be discussed?

How is it discriminatory to a male nursery worker to have a chaperone for toileting of female children but fine for a male GP to have the same? Will it impinge upon his career, his pay or progression?

I wonder am I losing it but to me equating asking for a chaperone for a male nursery worker to take a little girl to the toilet (while not to my individual taste) is completely different to making the same request with respect to creed or colour. "Sexism" should surely imply some loss or injury may occur as a result of the prejudice?

Tell me I've not lost my marbles.. Or that I have..

I am not interested in the 'all men are paedos'/'no they're not' argument because to me that's just white noise.. this is more of this 'let's protect the poor men from the terrible sexism they face on a daily basis' stuff, isn't it? Or am I insane?

if female workers can do toilet duties alone but male workers require a chaperone then it absolutely WILL affect the likelyhood of employers taking on men, not to mention what it says to society about men who want to work with young children being a bit 'suspect'.

i think it's very important for equality and for feminism that 'traditionally female' roles are open to men just as it's important that 'traditionally male' roles are open to women.

[p.s. in the thread linked to, if there is a personal issue in the past that makes this parent request special treatment then that is her right to ask for, but it shouldn't be standard that male workers don't do toilet duty for female babies and children].

I don't believe the thread was about protecting poor men from terribe sexism at all. It was more about a person's ability to do a job, regardless of gender. Toiletting toddlers really shouldn't be a gender issue at all. It is about competence and qualification.

I agree with fluffles. I think it's just as important to open predominantly female roles to men as it is to open traditionally male careers to women. Not to do so holds women back.

Oh I don't think it should be standard either.. what concerns me about the thread is that the woman is flamed to high heaven for even suggesting that she might be concerned about a strange man taking her daughter to the toilet and causing her to wet herself as it is 100% taboo to even think anything negative about a man in this situation.

I am concerned about how taboo it is to even raise this issue and how quickly her issues and those of her daughter are cast aside in favour of some theoretical slight to this particular male nursery worker.

Male GPs in my trust all have a facility whereby women can request a female chaperone within the clinic and it really doesn't affect their employability. I suspect that might be down to the differentials in pay levels here.

I absolutely agree re: 'traditionally female' roles being open to men and that men (including my small boy on my lap here asleep (smile)) are not automatically treated as predators.. but not at the cost of silencing, berating and ridiculing women whose personal experience makes them cautious, as if denying that the fear that some women feel in relation to men working with children has any validity, even in individual cases.

I am concerned that if you make something so taboo it can't be discussed, this is equally problematic. Anyone who ever said anything about a priest in Ireland got a clip round the ear, meaning that abuse went unreported for years and years.

I am a bit conflicted about this issue, tbh. I just feel extremely uncomfortable at the use of the word 'discrimination' in this context for some reason.

I think that GPs have chaperones mainly to protect themselves.

Regarding the potential for abuse, there is also a potential for abuse from female carers but that is something that society rarely discusses and women are always allowed to take children to the toilet unaccompanied.

Just because someone has a fear based on previous experience doesn't mean the whole environment has to change round about them. The subject can be, and has been discussed, it is just logical that there is minimal risk and that shouldn't change all activities.

I'm not sure that chaperones are available purely for the GP's self-protection as, apart from cases where the client is a known risk, they are client-requested. Our Trust has areas that have a population that is 90% South Asian/Muslim and I think it's to do with equality/diversty policy.. and yet no one assumes that it's because everyone thinks that the GP is an abuser.

I think many people who are not of the Muslim community have feelings about men taking children to the toilet (male or female) and while that is not necessarily A Good Thing it is as reflective of their cultural beliefs as it is of a Muslim person's - we're all up in this Patriarchy, don't you know.

I think it's good to challenge the idea that men can't work with children but not by quashing any discussion outright with name calling and certainly not by pulling a 'men are so downtrodden and this is why they don't work with children' card - blaming it all on the hysterical woman. However, here I recognise I am being unreasonable as it was AIBU.

With reference to female carers, in my workplace we can't take children male or female to the toilet unaccompanied. I doubt ours is the only one. This preceded the recent nursery abuse cases by a long shot.

I know I'm not particularly making sense. I just have the feeling that given the reality of the world we live in you can't just deny women's fears because you have an ideal that all men and all women are nurturing, wonderful human beings who would never harm a child.

I got tired of that thread. Read the first bits but when people started going on about male midwives and things I got a bit

My problem here is that I always ask for a female when having my smear, but I know the consensus on MN is that that is "sexist".

I think that if, for whatever reason, a woman or a child feel uncomforatble about knickers-off situations with the opposite sex then that should be respected.

But of course this is teh point at which people start shouting "but that's sexist! You can't have your cake and est it! if you want women to be equal then men have to be equal too!" etc etc etc

I think I understand where you're coming from mrsbean.

"I think that if, for whatever reason, a woman or a child feel uncomforatble about knickers-off situations with the opposite sex then that should be respected."

Yes.. I can't articulate it very well ImSoNotTelling and have been questioning why I feel this way today because I really don't have some terrible paranoia or suspicion of men, view them all as predatory and/or want them all to be in traditionally defined roles - "Look at the fireman! He's great! And the nurse, she's lovely" etc

I just feel that if this woman is uncomfortable about this it does not equate to feeling discomfort with being around people of different colours/creeds etc.

If you're trying to protect your modesty surely you request a female doctor/ nurse/ midwife rather than a chaperone? That I can quite understand but if you don't want to get your knickers off in front of a man, what difference does a chaperone make?

Also, I think it's quite different for an adult woman to have a issue with modesty than a toddler. Having skimmed over the thread, the child is obviously a bit older and seems to have an issue herself, rather than just her mother, which I think is differenct and allowances should be made.

(Re the GP, I've never been given the option. A female nurse has always been called in, hence my assumption that it's to protect the GP.)

I think you are right happysmiley that male docs have a female present for intimate examinations to protect themselves.