A friend of mine posted an interesting post about male childcare workers and I am interested in the opinions of those who read my blog.
Interested for 2 reasons:
1. Many of you have legal knowledge that might shed some light on the topic.
2. Many of you have opinions.
8 comments:
while I understand her fears, and there is validity to them, I do not seen anything inherently wrong with male childcare workers. Just because a man enjoys caring for children does not mean he is going to moleste anyone. Men are cabable of taking care of babies and children (feeding them, playing with them, changing diapers, etc) - fathers do it all the time. What is disturbing to me is that we think its disturbing for a men to have anyting to do with children.
If a day care provides background checks, and I believe they should on all employees, then I don't see the problem. You can't exclude an entire gender from working daycare because some people in that gender are sick and twisted.
I understand that we are talking about children, and molestation is extremely devestating to the victims and their families. Percautions must be taken, but I do not see why a cabable, competent, and willing person should be unable to work with children becuase he shares one characteristic with pedefiles - he is a male.
I am shocked. Literally shocked. As someone with some legal training, and because you requested some legal advice, I would point out that we don't put someone in jail because it is somewhat more likely that they committed a crime than someone else.
Of course, this does not involve a court room and parents are and should be free to raise there children in any way they please, even if it is ridiculously alarmist. However, to demand that a business lay off and refuse to hire male workers because the parent has an irrational fear of men, well that's ridiculous. A more appropriate solution would be to investigate and shop around for a childcare provider with similar views who you trust.
And saying that a man is 19 times more likely to molest a child than a woman says nothing to the overall likelihood of any given child being molested by any given person, which is incredibly low. Certainly by only using female providers, you may slightly decrease the risk of molestation, but, to qoute (or paraphrase) Shakespeare, "Thou protests too much." This family's policy excludes far more than it needs to and is an incredibly inefficient solution to an almost nonexistent problem.
And the fact that they exclude even their trusted male friends from baby sitting is appalling. I hope that SP and Arf wouldn't refuse to consider me for baby-sitting. I can say that even though I'm male and Nell is a female, we have an even chance of molesting a child: 0%! Neither one of us would. If I were a male friend of DYM, I would find her policy extremely insulting.
And what about child abductions? Barren childless women are more likely to kidnap children and raise them as their own than fertile men or fertile women(I assume). Should we prohibit barren women from child care? Of course not. We should judge people based on their actions and their moral fiber, not the statistically possible actions of their gender.
Not having children myself its hard for me to relate, but I agree with Warm Fuzzy and Fish Frog. Parents should of course protect their children, but it is possible to be over protective. From a reader's point of view (who knows nothing about this person other than what she posted) it seems like these children are going to grow up thinking that everyone and their uncle is a sexual preditor. That can't make for healthy future relationships, can it?
I guess for me what it essentially comes down to is that I don't believe in descrimination, and I can't agree with her viewpoint.
South Park episode 611, Child Abduction is not Funny, has the town in such a panic over child abductions that they build a giant wall, like the Great Wall of China, around town. Roving Mongolians hamper the construction's progress. The parents in town learn that parents are the people most likely to abduct children. The parents decide that they can't trust themselves and send the children away from town to be safe from the parents. The kids join the hoard of roving Mongolians and then everybody comes back together for a (typically, for South Park) condescending message about hysteria.
The comments on the DYM blog post are virtually all supportive of the no-men policy. There's also a "...the way things are nowadays" theme to the discussion, as if modern culture were so much more depraved than that of the past.
I don't believe I'm being paranoid in the least. From this discussion and others where my post has been the topic, I was reminded that DUH, they can't hire only female workers legally. Of course that's workplace discrimination, just the same as the grocery store that wouldn't hire me to be a bagger because I "looked" more like a checker. I know I cannot impose my personal preferences on a business. Thanks for the reminder.
The lucky thing about family policy is that it doesn't need to be PC, bow to public opinion or be nondiscriminatory.
Warm Fuzzy - I agree that there's nothing inherently wrong with male childcare workers. But, since I don't really know them, I find it easier (or you could say lazier) to play the statistical odds.
As to background checks, a friend of mine who worked for DCFS pointed out that "it is wise to not trust back ground checks especially if the workers are younger. Juvenile court records are confidential and sealed, so records for anyone under 18 or any crimes committed before someone is 18 will not show up on back ground checks." From Dr. Gene Abel in a National Institute of Mental Health study comes the statistic that the typical male offender “begins molesting by age 15.”
This comment: "And saying that a man is 19 times more likely to molest a child than a woman says nothing to the overall likelihood of any given child being molested by any given person, which is incredibly low." makes me laugh.
I don't know how anyone in their right mind can see the likelihood of child molestation as being incredibly low. 1 in 6 women will be the victim of completed or attempted rape in their lifetime. The number of molestations is much higher than that and I find that frighteningly high. If I can reduce that risk by even a fraction of a percentage, then I'm happy to do it, whether I offend someone or not.
Here is some info from Gavin De Becker’s book Protecting the Gift:
“The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that on average, there is one child molester per square mile” in this country. De Becker also says that the police are not likely to know who these people are “since the average child molester victimizes between thirty and sixty children before he is ever arrested. (And anyway, when he is arrested, there’s always a denier vouching for him with the familiar mantras: ‘But he’s such a nice man’ or ‘You can’t believe everything a child says.’)”
From fishfrog came another quaint bit of wisdom: "We should judge people based on their actions and their moral fiber, not the statistically possible actions of their gender." Although this statement is fabulously fair and equitable, how for the love of cheese do you expect me to judge the actions and moral fiber of the random teenage kid I see daily for 30 seconds working at the gym? The boy next door who offers to watch my kids? It may be a lazy solution but it's the best I can do with my current knowledge base. De Becker, a child abuse survivor and government-contracted expert in violent behavior, goes so far as to say that nearly 100% of sexual abuse is perpetrated by heterosexual males.
And as to your Shakespeare quote, if you're meaning to quote it with the same connotation as Gertrude in Hamlet, what exactly are you accusing me of lying about? If you're just saying, I talk too much and am overly concerned, how much importance do you think we should place on our children’s safety? How much is too much caution?
The post was meant to open up the discussion and get people thinking. Do you people have policies at all about who watches your kids, or would telling ANYONE that they couldn't watch your kids be too discriminatory for you? Or, honestly, do you HAVE kids?
From a legal standpoint, I think it would behoove the gym to at least have 2 caregivers at a time or a better way for people to observe what was going on in the childcare room. They're setting their guys up for either actual offenses or false accusations by having only one worker in a relatively isolated setting.
Statistics don't tell the whole story. They can be skewed and misinterpreted. They are not, however, irrelevant. I do not live my life by statistics but I do pay attention to them.
I pay attention to them when I make health and nutrition choices. I pay attention to them when I make financial decisions. I pay attention to them when I choose a freaking toothpaste. Why not pay attention when my children's futures are on the line?
I do have to say that comparing my blog to an episode of South Park about hysterical paranoid freaks is a first. I'll have to tuck that one away in my journal.
"I know I cannot impose my personal preferences on a business."
As I read your narrative, this is exactly what you did, lecturing the staff about the dangers of assigning their male staff to the role of child care. I totally agree with you that you have the right to raise your children however you want. I think a more appropriate reaction to your situation would be leaving your child in the hands of a trusted friend (though I also looked at the statistics, and they suggest that molestation is most often committed by acquaintences, then by close friends and family members, and finally, least often, by strangers; so maybe you should choose a random woman on the street, throw your child at her, and run away without making her acquaintence).
I think another reasonable approach would be to establish a system among your like-minded fellow mothers where you each agree to watch each other's children when you want to go to the gym.
As to my Shakespeare quote, I did not mean that I thought you were lying. I used it for its non-contextual meaning that your solution to your child protection is both under and over inclusive. Your blanket rule of no men excludes many capable care-givers unecessarily and fails to exclude others who should not watch your child, like infertile women and lesbians.
"The post was meant to open up the discussion and get people thinking."
It certainly did. Congrats!
"how for the love of cheese do you expect me to judge the actions and moral fiber of the random teenage kid I see daily for 30 seconds working at the gym?"
Beats the heck out of me. But I just don't think your categorical exclusion of men does a whole lot to help.
I can understand your position on letting your son babysit when he gets older. With people like you assuring your child that s/he will be definitely molested and over-reacting to every statistic that posps up, I certainly would be afarid to babysit someone's child.
Arf, I certainly agree with most of what you said. We live in a capitalist society, and if you don't agree with what a business is doing, you certainly shouldn't give them your money. And if that business wants your money, they better change their policies.
I used to babysit for a coworker when I was in high school. Three kids ranging from seven to twelve, I think. I didn't get paid much, and I didn't need the money. I babysat because I was friends with my coworker and she needed the help, and because I like kids. I don't like them enough to have any (they are kind of a money drain), but I think kids are cute and they are fun to play with.
I also volunteer with Big Brothers Big Sisters, in which I hang out with a thirteen year old boy and play kick ball and go on scavenger hunts. It's a lot of fun.
So I guess why I get so fired up on the topic is that I feel DYM's position is a personal accusation that there is a chance I'm a child molester. If DYM's position becomes a mainstream policy, BBBS will no longer accept male volunteers, and I won't ever get to babysit again. At a certain point, I won't even be allowed around my niece and nephew unless Nell or my Sister-in-law is around to stop my innate drive to molest.
And you know who molests children: fathers. So if I have children, can I be around them in Nell's absence? Do you trust yourself, Arf, or are you really 19 times more likely to molest than SB?
And another problem I have, which is less personal, is that it seems intellectually inconsistent and puritanical. If you are going to make your parenting decisions based on the odds a group of people will commit some crime against your child, why single out sexual crimes? Why not kidnapping, shaking, emotional abuse, or any other physical or mental abuse?
And lastly, the idea of being lectured about inappropriate touching by your mom in the car seconds before being put in a stranger's care seems scarring and creepy.
You know, if 1 in 6 women have been sexually assaulted in their lifetime, then it's either amazingly unlikely or impossible that the rate of child sexual abuse is higher than 1 in 6.
I mean, that 1 in 6 number includes sexual assaults during the lifetime of the woman. Lifetime includes childhood. It also includes incidences of sexual abuse when the woman was not a child. So the incidence of child sexual abuse for women must be lower than 1 in 6.
And so in order for the incidence of child sexual abuse (for both genders) to reach the frequency of 1 in 6 (much less exceed it), male children would have to be abused more frequently than 1 in 6. The stats though (which lack in certainty, both in terms of frequency of abuse and whether men or women are more frequently abusers) indicate that female children are victimized more often than male children, making this very unlikely.
That's my pedantic comment.
Post a Comment