Would you have a male childminder?

[Strawbs]

100% yes after the same screening and interviewing process I would give anyone. One of the factors that helped me decide which nursery to send my son to was that they had a male key worker there.

[Medusa]

With all due respect to those who have implied that my choice is based on 'nonsense' or 'prejudice', I don't agree. My children have many men who enrich their lives in a variety of ways; I value them enormously, as I do the brilliant male teachers/coaches, etc, they have had over the years. I want them to see both men and women in as wide as possible a range of roles that challenge gender norms.

My own experience - both professional and personal - in the field of sexual abuse has given me a pretty clear idea about the actual facts, rather than the misconceptions, about abuse, and it is undeniably true that men pose a far greater risk than women do. While it goes without saying that I don't see every man as a likely, or even potential, abuser, it is nevertheless true that nobody can ascertain which individual is a 'safe bet' on the basis of an interview, a CV and even a CRB check. Nor is it possible to divine who probable abusers are on the basis of 'gut instinct'; if it were, far fewer people would respond to revelations of abuse with the shocked comment that they had *no idea* that their friend/babysitter/scout leader/husband/etc was capable of that. For that reason and that reason alone, I would not choose a male childminder because *within that context* I would not have the opportunity to get to know someone well enough over a long enough period of time to be certain that I could trust them.

My kids are regularly seen up trees and lampposts in SE22 and hardly live an overprotected and cloistered life, but with some aspects of their safety, I choose to err on the safe side. It doesn't mean that my children miss out on good male role models; their science tutor (they're home-educated atm) and their tennis coach are both lovely men whom they adore. It's also nonsense to imply that men are being 'driven from' fields of work such as teaching. Men have traditionally held fewer posts in primary schools, while the posts they do hold tend to be senior. Elsewhere, more men are employed in nurseries than in the past and there are far more men in nursing now than even 20 years ago. This is *obviously* a good thing in the same way and for exactly the same reason that it's a good thing to have more women engineers, physicists and plumbers. It's perfectly possible to be in favour of equality of opportunity whilst recognizing that safeguarding children is paramount.

My choice not to leave my children alone with a man I don't know very well is not substantially different from the regulations that prohibit male doctors/nurses from carrying out intimate examinations on female patients without a second person present. So far as I'm aware, male nursery workers are not allowed to assist with certain types of care needs either, nor are male teachers supposed to have unsupervised meetings, etc, with female pupils. These rules and regulations were all drawn up in response to an increased awareness of the prevalence of abuse. Do the people who consider me an alarmist bigot also think that these measures are excessive?

[Otta]

Still far more likely to get flattened by a bus whilst out with their female nanny but anyway.

Each to their own. I wasn't saddened by any individual on here, just the fear in our society.

[DaveR]

Medusa, no matter how you seek to explain it, your position is not based on a rational assessment of risk. The fact that men appear to present a greater statistical risk than women does not assist in assessing either the actual risk of a particular man or woman being an abuser, or the risk of a random man or woman being an abuser. The risk of a random man or woman being an abuser is likely to be too small to be statistically useful at all.

Further all of this:

"it is nevertheless true that nobody can ascertain which individual is a 'safe bet' on the basis of an interview, a CV and even a CRB check. Nor is it possible to divine who probable abusers are on the basis of 'gut instinct'; if it were, far fewer people would respond to revelations of abuse with the shocked comment that they had *no idea* that their friend/babysitter/scout leader/husband/etc was capable of that. For that reason and that reason alone, I would not choose a male childminder because *within that context* I would not have the opportunity to get to know someone well enough over a long enough period of time to be certain that I could trust them"

applies equally to a female childminder, unless you are claiming either that a female presents no risk, or that you can judge the risk of a woman based on CV etc. but not a man.

Whether you like it or not, your position does reflect a belief that any man (regardless of their qualifications, background etc.) is a potential abuser, or at least that the risk of that being the case is too substantial to be mitigated.

Unhappily, I'm sure you are not the only person posting here who has some experience, direct or indirect, professional or personal, of child sexual abuse. If your own experience has influenced your feelings, that is understandable, and as I said, it is everybody's right to make their own decisions on whatever basis they like. Nobody is calling you an alarmist bigot. But it is unhelpful to say (even implicitly) "if you know the truth about abuse the logical/rational thing to do is not to employ a male childminder".

[MGolden]

Medusa - you state 'My choice not to leave my children alone with a man I don't know very well is not substantially different from the regulations that prohibit male doctors/nurses from carrying out intimate examinations on female patients without a second person present.'

And you're right but that is more about protecting the male nurse/doctor/carer from unfounded and at times malicious allegations. Previous posters have stated that abuse and even murder is more likely to happen at the hands of family members and/or friends and statistics bear this out.

When my children (both boys) were at nursery there were two male care workers and both of them looked after my children at some stage. One of them was fabulous, the other appalling. The same could be said of some of their female care workers.

[????]

for all those being a bit righteous....

2 candidates of equal qualification, both interviewed as well, both initially impressive, one male one female, which ONE would you honestly choose. Easy to theorise on equality IMO.

[MGolden]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> for all those being a bit righteous....

>

> 2 candidates of equal qualification, both

> interviewed as well, both initially impressive,

> one male one female, which ONE would you honestly

> choose. Easy to theorise on equality IMO.

Easy - offer them a job share! :))

[Otta]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> for all those being a bit righteous....

>

> 2 candidates of equal qualification, both

> interviewed as well, both initially impressive,

> one male one female, which ONE would you honestly

> choose. Easy to theorise on equality IMO.

It's a fair point, but surely you'd pick who you honestly thought would offer most to your kid. That could be the woman it could be the man.

[Bumpkin]

We had a male nanny from when my son was 13 months and I was absolutely thrilled with him. He was great at playing all types of games with my son but was equally good at the softer skills I wanted in a nanny. One big plus was that I got the feeling he didn't stand around chatting with the other female nannies much, but actively played with my son and the other boy we shared with when they were out. Our manny was very much in demand and I had several friends trying to lure him away from us, so if your husband is any good with children I'm sure you would have a market in ED, good luck!

[Smiler]

"It's also nonsense to imply that men are being 'driven from' fields of work such as teaching."

It's obvious - and am sure backed by evidence - that public anxiety about paedophiles puts many men off teaching and other work with children. So the "traditional" female roles become yet more female dominated. This a big problem IMO in the same ways that any occupation being dominated by one gender or group is a problem.

[minder]

I've only known 3 male registered childminders in the Southwark/Lambeth area during the 11 years I've been minding and they were/are all good at their jobs. I've not seen one of them for a while so think he's either given up or moved away.

Obviously to become registered they would have to have enhanced CRB checks.

I've also known a very good male nanny (who has advertised on here in recent months) and would say whenever I've seen him (at different groups and in the park) he is fantastic with the children he looks after.

Coincidentally, there's an interesting article in this month's issue of eye (early years educator) about 'Men in childcare: Challenge the status quo'. It's 6 pages long and an interesting read.

[espelli]

Medusa Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So far as I'm aware, male nursery

> workers are not allowed to assist with certain

> types of care needs either, nor are male teachers

> supposed to have unsupervised meetings, etc, with

> female pupils. These rules and regulations were

> all drawn up in response to an increased awareness

> of the prevalence of abuse. Do the people who

> consider me an alarmist bigot also think that

> these measures are excessive?

Medusa, where did you hear that male nursery workers were not allowed to perform certain care needs or male teachers not have unsupervised meetings with female students?

I have never heard of this in a Nursery or Primary school and it is through the passing on of hearsay and rumour like this that these things become known as "fact" and all men looking after children are viewed with suspicion. Abuse does happen in schools and nurseries and everyone working in them should be vigilant but these have involved women as the abusers too. It is really important to remember that a child is more likely to be abused by a family member than someone who is employed to look after them.

To the OP, a friend of mine is a childminder in Lewisham and he is excellent and does not find it difficult to find work. He goes to a couple of Dad/male carer groups with his charges so that he doesn't always feel like a novelty - one of the groups runs out of Hatcham Grove Children's Centre in Brockley - so there are others out there and they are accepted! He started doing it for exactly the same reasons as your friend is considering it. Feel free to PM me if you would like more info.

[shaunag]

I think it's a bit mean to jump on Medusa and the Other Poster for their honesty that they would not entrust their kids to a male carer. My sister works on abuse cases and the stories I have heard from her would keep you awake at night.some people worry,others are less worry prone (lucky them). Child Care is such a personal choice and everyone has to do what is right for them and what makes them most comfortable. There is obviously a market for male carers and I agree it's brilliant to get more male involvement from an early age rather than the Los constantly being surrounded by women. That said, I am so risk averse I won't be leaving my lo alone with any stranger male or female before she can tell me what she thinks of them - it's not just abuse I worry about,it's her being ignored,called names,not being Molly coddled even! So,mine is at nursery.she loves it and is very happy there.I don't think my choice warrants comments re my faulty risk assessment and the like, I'm just doing what's right for me and my baby as every parent should. The question is whether there is a market for a male nanny,not whether every person should consider it to be for them or not. I will make the observation though that it appears those that have male nannies all seem to have boys-if this remains the case throughout the thread it's worth bearing in mind op (ie smaller market,but market nonetheless). Good luck and well done to your other half for taking on the challenge.

[minder]

I worked in a reception class in 2006/07 and was told I wasn't allowed to help the children who had wet/soiled themselves by myself and that I had to have a 'witness'.

I'm a female by the way!

But shaunag, the childminders/nanny I've known have also looked after girls.

Are you saying that no nurseries, by the way, should employ male staff?

[oimissus]

actually, I would have been happy for my daughter to have a male childminder. For one reason or another there aren't many men in her life (plenty of little boys though!) and another man would have been a very good thing for her.

shaunag, I respect your decision but your reasoning for not leaving your child alone with any adult doesn't quite make sense - I can't imagine why you would think that any childminder or nanny would ignore her or call her names - equally, I very much doubt she'll be getting mollycoddled at nursery, and if a nanny could call her names or ignore her, why not a nursery worker?

It just seems that there's some very jumbled thinking on this topic going on. But some positive stories too which is great.

[Saffron]

shaunag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it's a bit mean to jump on Medusa and the

> Other Poster for their honesty that they would not

> entrust their kids to a male carer.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but... it seems to me that what upset people was not that some posters wouldn't consider a male childminder, but that the reasons they gave were unsubstantiated. Childcare is an emotive issue, and it's absolutely fine to go with your gut. There's nothing wrong with making an emotionally based decision. However, if one tries to pass off an emotionally based decision as a factually based decision then it's pretty common for people to feel besmirched by that.

> The question is

> whether there is a market for a male nanny,not

> whether every person should consider it to be for

> them or not.

The OP not only asked it there is a market for it, s/he also asked in general what local people think. So on the strength of that, it seems reasonable that people will also answer with individual opinions.

> I don't think my choice warrants comments re my faulty risk assessment.

There's also a basic misundestanding of the terms hazard, risk, and risk assessment in this thread. Emotive-based risk assessment would be an entirely different thing to a fact-based assessment. There's nothing wrong with using either in an appropriate context, but one cannot be passed off as the other. It's not so much that posters have given faulty accounts of risk assessment as it is their reasons are simply non-sequitor. IE, one cannot say I made a factual decision based on my emotions. It's illogical. The decision could be valid, but not for the reasons stated. It's like putting stripes on a donkey and trying to pass it off as a zebra. It will raise eyebrows at the zoo, no?

[shaunag]

Thanks Oimissus. There are many many reasons why nursery works better for me - it was a long and very carefully considered decision regarding which I will not go into detail here as it would just be plain irrelevant to others who are in different circumstances. I did use a carer when I was in the house (long story) and overheard the way she spoke to my daughter accidentally through a monitor that I leave on in the next room.i listened for five minutes and she left my crying daughter in a bouncer as she was reading a book. No gross negligence (needless to say that was the end of her caring for my daughter), but in my mind unlikely to happen in a nursery.to me its one thing to leave an upset baby waiting when caring for another child from which my child learns about caring for others, another from a person thinking it's ok when their primary purpose is to care for my baby. You can call it illogical if you like, but to my mind in a nursery with several staff this situation would nOt be as likely to happen. My daughter does get Molly coddled,In turn and I'm ok with that. I would say I think if it works for you a nanny is probably the best care possible for lots of reasons,I'm just not a trusting person and so can't make that leap of faith. Im also a ridiculous worrier and have considered ridiculously remote possibilites such as likelihood of being hit by a bus being less in a nursery environment than in the care of a nanny-im not sure how you can argue against that (as i said my reasons are many,some even practical,but beyond scope of post)! As I said, I think more men in kids lives is great, and of course I don't think they should be banned from nurseries and if I gave that impression I didn't mean to. After learning about the options available within means Gut instinct is the driving force behind child care choice and so arguing about whether something is fact based or not really doesn't come into it. If you do want to go down that road there is evidence to suggest gut instinct is often ahead of the logical brain in any event.

[Smiler]

Our (female) CM's daily journal book from the National Child Minders Association has a male CM on the cover, your friend might be able to get some advice from them!