NationStates Jolt Archive

I signed up to a website in order to find a good babysitter. I noticed immediately that all the candidates, without exception are female. That doesn't suprise me much, considering the fears of parents, and the strong bias against males in child-care situations.

The website sends you a sort of guide for choosing a sitter. These sections jumped out at me:

"The vast majority of all physical and sexual abuse is committed by males. Statistically, your child is at a greater risk from male babysitters / nannies than from female babysitters / nannies.

Here are some statistical resources for more information regarding this:
- http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2005000.pdf
- http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2004000.pdf
- http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/189102.pdf "


"Be cautious of male babysitters. There are lots of wonderful male caregivers but the majority that commit crimes against children do not have a criminal record and have experience working with children. Be careful of men who always volunteer to baby-sit and who are more interested in your child's friendship than yours. This could be a warning sign."

What do you think about male babysitters...and the way that male babysitters have been represented by this site?

I worry about any adult that seems inappropriately obsessed with my kids.

I have no problem letting my husband care for my kids, but pretty much don't let anyone else watch them other than family anyway.

There are a few male teachers at the preschool program that I teach at, the insurance says they cannot be alone with children unless there is a woman in the room..... I don't know what I think about that.

I'm male and I've baby sat before, although only for friends. I hope they don't think I'm a child molestor. That website makes me depressed.

i think id be very cautious about using that website to find a babysitter. anyone who is so adamant about men being dangerous to children might well ignore the signs that a female babysitter is abusive.

as with any babysitter, you have to judge a man on his personality, background and qualifications. i dont see why a man cant be a good childcare worker.

I feel bad for the males who would want to babysit, or teach, or be in a profession that centers around children in any way, because there will always be questions that aren't necessarily going to be asked of females.

That being said...I know, and I'll say it up front, that I would hire a female babysitter over a male one, simply to cut down on the natural worries leaving your child in the care of others brings.

I feel bad about this discrimination, but there you have it :(

However, the characterisation in the site bothers me...I can't imagine a male even bothering to sign up with them.

Because all men who like children are child molestors. In fact, all men are child molestors. Only women should be allowed near children.

God, that made my brain hurt. I would think that a lot of young men wouldn't want to babysit; in my experience, women tend to have a higher opinion of children than men do.

i think id be very cautious about using that website to find a babysitter. anyone who is so adamant about men being dangerous to children might well ignore the signs that a female babysitter is abusive. Not at all, there is information about the stats of nanny/childcare crimes including females, and other information about warning signs and such:

"• Do not tell your child to obey a babysitter as he or she would obey you. Rather, tell your child to obey the sitter only as long as what he asks is the same as what you would expect. Make these instructions apply to daycare or preschool as well as to sitters in the home.
• Train and expect your child to always report to you what happened when she was looked after by anyone else. Listen carefully to whatever your child says, and ask about anything which seems strange. "

In any case, this site is just a contact point, we have to do all the background checks and interviews anyway.


as with any babysitter, you have to judge a man on his personality, background and qualifications. i dont see why a man cant be a good childcare worker.
I agree in many ways...but if I were interviewing four candidates, and one was male, I'd likely eliminate him as a matter of course. I know it's not necessarily fair, I know it's sexist...but when it comes to my kids, I tell myself the risk isn't worth it.

And that bothers me, that gut reaction.

I feel bad for the males who would want to babysit, or teach, or be in a profession that centers around children in any way, because there will always be questions that aren't necessarily going to be asked of females.

I think this will die down as more and more men go into these fields. Unfortunately, just like any type of professional discrimination, it'll take a while. And the sad thing is that, because of the stigma that has been placed on childcare as being "women's work" for so long, some of the characterizations may be based in truth. I don't think your average man is any more likely to harm children than your average woman. However, I do think it is possible that, of those men who choose to break the gender stereotypes and go into childcare roles, there may be many who would victimize children. Someone who wishes to do that will likely be drawn to a profession/hobby/whatever that involves children and thus may break the gender barrier more often.

As the gender roles themselves get attacked and more and more people can go into the fields they wish without being ridiculed, we'll probably see more guys in childcare positions. And I would expect the alarming statistics to go down at that point as well.

That said, I was taken care of by a male babysitter for part of my childhood, and it was no problem. I don't think I would let anyone babysit my children if I didn't check them out thoroughly first, and I'd watch the children closely for any problems with *anyone* else watching them. ((I'm probably going to be a rather paranoid parent)).

I've babysat before, for family and friends. I like kids (:eek:) so I'm good with 'em.

It seems as if the underlying basis of modern life is "Be afraid, be very afraid." Child molesters, the Gay Agenda (by the way, I've lost my copy, does anyone have an extra?), the Religious Right, the Irreligious Left, Intelligent Design, Evolution, everyone's got more than a couple of monsters in the closet or under the bed. They don't even have to be real, as long as they're scary enough. Used to be all we had to fear, besides fear itself, was the godless commies and a few of their running-dog lackeys. No sooner did they go away than we found ourselves up to our flabby asses in all sorts of hideous things. Sometimes I almost envy the ignorant for their bliss.

I think this will die down as more and more men go into these fields. Unfortunately, just like any type of professional discrimination, it'll take a while. And the sad thing is that, because of the stigma that has been placed on childcare as being "women's work" for so long, some of the characterizations may be based in truth. I don't think your average man is any more likely to harm children than your average woman. However, I do think it is possible that, of those men who choose to break the gender stereotypes and go into childcare roles, there may be many who would victimize children. Someone who wishes to do that will likely be drawn to a profession/hobby/whatever that involves children and thus may break the gender barrier more often. This is interesting...I do really see this as an area where there need to be trailblazers. There are overwhelming obstacles to a man entering a child-centered profession.

That said, I was taken care of by a male babysitter for part of my childhood, and it was no problem. I don't think I would let anyone babysit my children if I didn't check them out thoroughly first, and I'd watch the children closely for any problems with *anyone* else watching them. ((I'm probably going to be a rather paranoid parent)).I am extremely paranoid. I think most parents are. I talk to the dayhome lady constantly, and to my kids about their experience there, but I don't think I ever let my guard down.

I don't think I see this.

Unfortunately, I believe that there are about as many sick and twisted women out there as there are such men, and with kids this young, I don't think that there are that many circumstances that, uh, would make it that much more unlikely or 'difficult' for a woman to commit any such crimes as alluded to against the kids, as there may be once we talk older kids / adults.

I'm sorry if this came out wrong, and/or not clear enough.

Because all men who like children are child molestors. In fact, all men are child molestors. Only women should be allowed near children.

God, that made my brain hurt. I would think that a lot of young men wouldn't want to babysit; in my experience, women tend to have a higher opinion of children than men do.

Dude, I'm a guy, not a molester, and I wouldn't leave my hypothetical kid with a male babysitter. While not all men are kid touchers, there seem to be more male molesters than female. I'd play the odds and hire a woman. An attractive woman. There's nothing worse than being molested by a man or an ugly woman.

Dude, I'm a guy, not a molester, and I wouldn't leave my hypothetical kid with a male babysitter. While not all men are kid touchers, there seem to be more male molesters than female. I'd play the odds and hire a woman. An attractive woman. There's nothing worse than being molested by a man or an ugly woman.

Dork.

My husband just told me to hire the 'hot' one too, by the way :rolleyes: :p

Dork.

My husband just told me to hire the 'hot' one too, by the way :rolleyes: :p

I guess great minds think alike.

I signed up to a website in order to find a good babysitter. I noticed immediately that all the candidates, without exception are female. That doesn't suprise me much, considering the fears of parents, and the strong bias against males in child-care situations.

The website sends you a sort of guide for choosing a sitter. These sections jumped out at me:

"The vast majority of all physical and sexual abuse is committed by males. Statistically, your child is at a greater risk from male babysitters / nannies than from female babysitters / nannies.

Here are some statistical resources for more information regarding this:
- http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2005000.pdf
- http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2004000.pdf
- http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/189102.pdf "


"Be cautious of male babysitters. There are lots of wonderful male caregivers but the majority that commit crimes against children do not have a criminal record and have experience working with children. Be careful of men who always volunteer to baby-sit and who are more interested in your child's friendship than yours. This could be a warning sign."

What do you think about male babysitters...and the way that male babysitters have been represented by this site?That's pretty... harsh. I've babysat before and I'm glad I didn't get this sort of stuff thrown at me.

We have a decently large baby-care day-care area at our church, infants through toddlers and pre-schoolers. The church is just big enough that you don't quite know everyone else even when you know about half of everyone else.

We have an expectation on the regulars that use the day care system (during the four hours or so on Sunday morning ~ two services and Sunday school coverage) weekly,

The expectation is that if a family uses it regularly we anticipate them applying to volunteer themselves some hours of work for others. Before they can be put to work though, they have to go through a back-ground check procedure, some child care training basics (a couple of hours of what to do about one child hitting another or an illness and when you have to call the parents back to get their child etc.,) and a security legal/safety of the child training course which involves things like, what to do if a child says they need help in the bathroom (the answer btw: two adults, not one, door open etc.,) and about keeping extra adults out of the play area (stay behind the counter etc.,) during working hours and pick-up drop off times, and when and where it is not okay to let men volunteer (men alone or men in rooms with doors shut etc.,).

The expectation is dropped if the user is a single male without a wife. If there is a couple then the couple is expected to volunteer together, so men are not excluded entirely from the area, but they need a chaperone I suppose :p

I 100% agree with the policy and I work with my wife in it. I think keeping men out of those areas entirely would be too much, but being careful instead of sorry just keeps everyone happier and more comfortable.

Dude, I'm a guy, not a molester, and I wouldn't leave my hypothetical kid with a male babysitter. While not all men are kid touchers, there seem to be more male molesters than female. I'd play the odds and hire a woman. An attractive woman. There's nothing worse than being molested by a man or an ugly woman.

I concur wholeheartedly. I don't see this as a case of prejudice as it is based on facts.

There are a few male teachers at the preschool program that I teach at, the insurance says they cannot be alone with children unless there is a woman in the room..... I don't know what I think about that.
Well I don't know about pre-school, but I know that in primary school, at least in this country, being male is a huge advantage. My male friend is studying to become a primary school teacher, and because there are relatively few men in that profession, statistically he'd be almost guaranteed a position as Principal after less than 5 years.

Well I don't know about pre-school, but I know that in primary school, at least in this country, being male is a huge advantage. My male friend is studying to become a primary school teacher, and because there are relatively few men in that profession, statistically he'd be almost guaranteed a position as Principal after less than 5 years.

It's an advantage because there is such a shortage...and there is such a shortage because men in those positions are under so much more scrutiny than women. That means a LOT more stress. Hey, I'm pretty much guaranteed a position as a mechanic if I wanted to be one, because there are few female mechanics. Would I want the gried that would come with it? No.

As for being statistically guaranteed an administrative position (Principal)...well, men are overrepresented there.

It's like the whole nurse/doctor thing as a male...what kind of man would be a nurse, and not go further to be a doctor? The same is generally applied to male teachers, ESPECIALLY in elementary school...why be a teacher when you can be a principal? If you don't advance in that way, people question your professionality, where they don't do the same to females.

I concur wholeheartedly. I don't see this as a case of prejudice as it is based on facts.

Exactly. Just like if I were a cop and I were trying to catch crack dealers I'd pull over black people and if I were looking for a lawyer I'd pick a Jew because they're crafty and well connected. You've got to play the odds.

Exactly. Just like if I were a cop and I were trying to catch crack dealers I'd pull over black people and if I were looking for a lawyer I'd pick a Jew. You've got to play the odds.

Thanks, I was trying to think up other repugnant examples of profiling...these do nicely.

Maybe things have changed since I left primary school 7 years ago. But from my recollection the staff in the school were always very comfortable with leaving men in the classroom. We'd have an outside speaker come in on a weekly basis and the teacher would just leave and take a break during that time. Besides, the groups were always of about 30 pupils and never in an intimate setting, so there was little to worry about.

Thanks, I was trying to think up other repugnant examples of profiling...these do nicely.

No problem. You can always count on me to stir up some trouble.

I'm a 17 year old male and I've baby sat next doors kids loads of times. My sister does it mostly now as I'm busy usually at the weekend what with work in the evening. I still do it now and then and they are fine with it, theres definatly a stigma that males are evil child molestors around though.

I worry about any adult that seems inappropriately obsessed with my kids.

I have no problem letting my husband care for my kids, but pretty much don't let anyone else watch them other than family anyway.

There are a few male teachers at the preschool program that I teach at, the insurance says they cannot be alone with children unless there is a woman in the room..... I don't know what I think about that.

I hate rules like that. This past summer, I worked as a lifeguard at a summer camp. There, the rules were balanced. No counselor could go to the bathroom alone, or could even put sunscreen on the kids. That got passed to lifeguards (appearently, because of our training, we are permitted greater autonomy).

I think it is rediculous that they assume men are going to molest children. I've worked as a counselor, babysitter, and lifeguard for years. I've never touched a child inappropriatly. It is rediculous to assume that I would, just because I have a penis. It is no different than the airline that would not allow adult males to sit next to small children (oddly, Sin, I think that was a thread here where you and I first discussed a similar issue to this)

what to do if a child says they need help in the bathroom (the answer btw: two adults, not one, door open etc.,)

Poor kid. Even as a young child, I was very modest. I think I would have rathered to pee all over myself than have extra people there and the door open.

and when and where it is not okay to let men volunteer (men alone or men in rooms with doors shut etc.,).

But women are allowed to be with children alone with the doors shut? What is your church going to do the first time a woman abuses children there?

The expectation is dropped if the user is a single male without a wife.

Lucky him, I suppose. Sounds to me like the church doesn't trust its male members, however, while trusting its female members much more implicitly.

I 100% agree with the policy and I work with my wife in it. I think keeping men out of those areas entirely would be too much, but being careful instead of sorry just keeps everyone happier and more comfortable.

You aren't being very careful when you assume that only men need to be scrutinized in the childcare process. The woman who takes a child into a room alone could be just as abusive as a man who does so. Perhaps a better rule, if they're really worried about it, would be that none of the workers are alone with the children and the door closed?

The expectation is dropped if the user is a single male without a wife. If there is a couple then the couple is expected to volunteer together, so men are not excluded entirely from the area, but they need a chaperone I suppose :p
I 100% agree with the policy and I work with my wife in it. I think keeping men out of those areas entirely would be too much, but being careful instead of sorry just keeps everyone happier and more comfortable.

No, they don't.

This policy is unwarranted and unjust, and keeps happy and comfortable only those who like to think in their stereotyped boxes instead of implementing safe, sensible rules that go to any feasible and sane extend to keep children from abusive harm, no matter whom from.

I'd want to see the happy single child-raising man who is oh so comfortable with implicitly being told that he is a danger to kids and not supposed to be allowed to be around them.

I used to work at a Juvenille detention center for girls as a teacher. You were never allowed to be alone with them at any time. 90% of the girls in there had been abused, so it seemed like a pretty good rule, even if I wasn't going to abuse them, simply the chance that they might think that I would was worth avoiding. 90% ...

Having said that I used to to a lot of child minding and baby sitting as a teenager. My parents were one of the first families to move into an elderly area.. as the old folk started to "leave" more and more young families moved in so I was a lot older than all the kids but knew all the parents (many had seen me grow up) so I guess they figured it was ok...

Still feels yuk to be immediately associated with that kind of thing though....

As for preschool.. that is just going to become a more and more female dominated area.. I just can't see guys ever being allowed to get a foothold there.. no matter what happens.. which is really sad. Kids need to know that most guys are ok. If they grow up with the ide that guys are all child molesters that is really gonna mess up society..

Poor kid. Even as a young child, I was very modest. I think I would have rathered to pee all over myself than have extra people there and the door open.

It's a child only bathroom, in the back around a corner but very bright, easy for semi-privacy, not direct line of sight anyway, even with the door open, most of the kids leave the door open even when they don't need help.


But women are allowed to be with children alone with the doors shut? What is your church going to do the first time a woman abuses children there?

Women generally leave the top 'half' of the door open as well. Only noisy screaming laughing toddlers get a closed door on a regular basis, generally to shut the noise down for the sleeping infants next door. The visitor is far more comfortable with a woman greeting them when they enter, want to take a survey to prove it? We think churches should be as comfortable as possible for the first time visitor.


Lucky him, I suppose. Sounds to me like the church doesn't trust its male members, however, while trusting its female members much more implicitly.

Yup, and like I said, I agree with it. We can play the statistics game too, but women aren't alone, there's always two of them too.

You aren't being very careful when you assume that only men need to be scrutinized in the childcare process. The woman who takes a child into a room alone could be just as abusive as a man who does so. Perhaps a better rule, if they're really worried about it, would be that none of the workers are alone with the children and the door closed?

I'm sorry if I made a mistake identifying who gets the background checks and trainging etc., it's everyone, including the women volunteers.

.
I'd want to see the happy single child-raising man who is oh so comfortable with implicitly being told that he is a danger to kids and not supposed to be allowed to be around them.


He's told that women he doesn't know feel uncomfortable leaving their two month old baby with him and instead take the baby into the service with them instead using the daycare service, but if a woman is there the visitor will feel more likely to utilize the day-care service. Facts are facts, like them or not. We aren't doing the service to prove a political point, we're offering a free service for their convenience.

Would you offer free pork meals to poor Muslims just to make a point?

I think it's a real shame that in this case, all men are tarnished with the same brush. Yes, there are more incidences of males molesting children but that doesn't mean that females won't/haven't done it. All babysitters should be carefully screened if they are working for a professional organisation, but it definitely should not be "females only" because that is just sexist and entirely unfair. A female babysitter could still end up molesting a child.

Dude, I'm a guy, not a molester, and I wouldn't leave my hypothetical kid with a male babysitter. While not all men are kid touchers, there seem to be more male molesters than female. I'd play the odds and hire a woman. An attractive woman. There's nothing worse than being molested by a man or an ugly woman.

Yeah-imagine how ashamed you'd be if some pimply fat bucktoothed bitch with a unibrow was molesting you?

I want that blond teacher who was having sex with the 13 yr old changing my diaper.


On a serious note- What the fuck man WANTS to spend time with children? No normal ones- we are always looking to get away from them.

I want to kick other people's children when I see the spoiled little douchebags whining and squealing.

No- dont hire a man to stay with your kids. If he doesnt already have a problem, he will soon.

That being said- My wife and I have always worked and never hired anyone to watch our kids-we changed shifts,I worked nights, now we both work from home. I'm just the type tha tdoesnt leave my kids with other people.
Even without the abuse aspect,I dont want someone else to be the one with them for their first steps, words, etc...

And-ever see the hidden cams of babysitters abusing kids? Smacking and shaking infants?

Always women.....

I'm a cub scout leader and part of the training centered on child sexual abuse.

Most of it was making you aware never to put yourself in a situation where you could even be accused. All meetings must have at least two leaders present, parents are encouraged to participate. If there arent two adults available-there is no meeting/function.

You are never to be alone with any boy-in a room, a tent, the restroom-with the exception of your own son.

I'm involved because I wouldnt just dump my kid somewhere for an hour on monday night, or for a day trip or overnighter. I'm always there.

Apparently, there are enough false accusations or suspicions to ruin people's lives too.

I'd play the odds and hire a woman. An attractive woman.

One that will accept, nay, demand, alternative forms of payment. * lascivious grin *

I'm a cub scout leader and part of the training centered on child sexual abuse.

They train you to abuse children?! :eek:

Women generally leave the top 'half' of the door open as well.

"Generally." In other words, they aren't required to. Why is that?

Only noisy screaming laughing toddlers get a closed door on a regular basis, generally to shut the noise down for the sleeping infants next door.

Then the woman should not be in the room for them alone.

The visitor is far more comfortable with a woman greeting them when they enter, want to take a survey to prove it? We think churches should be as comfortable as possible for the first time visitor.

What does greeting have to do with it? We were talking about a caretaker being in a room alone with a child.

Meanwhile, I find it interesting that you think churches should be as comfortable as possible for the first time visitor, but can disrespect standing members. You might get them to come back after a first-time visit, but then you make them feel like they are untrustworthy once you have them there?

I have a feeling that your church would be another one that, after initially feeling comfortable, I would leave with disgust.

Yup, and like I said, I agree with it.

So you think any single father is a danger to the children there, even though there would presumably be someone else working the daycare as well? That's quite a position.

We can play the statistics game too, but women aren't alone, there's always two of them too.

You said that women could be alone in a room with children. And if there is always more than one person working in the daycare, there really is no reason to exempt single fathers, now is there? They'd never be alone any more than a married man would.

I'm sorry if I made a mistake identifying who gets the background checks and trainging etc., it's everyone, including the women volunteers.

And yet men are still treated with quite a bit more distrust. If anyone needs to be treated the way the men are being treated, they ALL do. Background check or not, if you are really doing this to be careful and keep the children safe, then all caretakers should be treated with the same level of scrutiny and have the same regulations. Their genitalia should not exempt them from some of it.

He's told that women he doesn't know feel uncomfortable leaving their two month old baby with him and instead take the baby into the service with them instead using the daycare service, but if a woman is there the visitor will feel more likely to utilize the day-care service. Facts are facts, like them or not. We aren't doing the service to prove a political point, we're offering a free service for their convenience.

I thought you said there's never only one person working the daycare?

"Generally." In other words, they aren't required to. Why is that?

see below


Then the woman should not be in the room for them alone.

If the door is closed for noise, someone has to be in there, man or woman? Your choice. We choose the woman when it has to be done, if it's the man in there alone, the door is open, noise or no noise.


What does greeting have to do with it? We were talking about a caretaker being in a room alone with a child.

Someone has to accept the kid when they drop them off and sign them in don't they.


So you think any single father is a danger to the children there, even though there would presumably be someone else working the daycare as well? That's quite a position.

I do not think every single father is a danger. I think every single father is less usable by not being an interchangeable resource on the list of volunteers.


You said that women could be alone in a room with children. And if there is always more than one person working in the daycare, there really is no reason to exempt single fathers, now is there? They'd never be alone any more than a married man would.

Yes there is. A single father means a different woman won't be able to work with her own husband. If a different single mother showed up and wanted to work with him, something might be worked out, probably, that's not a rule written in stone. But most people volunteer as couples and the co-ordinator needs as many interchangable parts as possible.

FYI: Single women with older kids and an infant, (over 6), don't volunteer either, they don't have anyone to watch their kids in the service if they are in the day care. But it is a sexist equation, I'm not denying it, but I still defend it. It's right.


And yet men are still treated with quite a bit more distrust. If anyone needs to be treated the way the men are being treated, they ALL do. Background check or not, if you are really doing this to be careful and keep the children safe, then all caretakers should be treated with the same level of scrutiny and have the same regulations.


Even you said you would be a suspicious parent. Two men do not work together, two women can. It's sexist, I support it anyway because families like women watching their kids better then men watching them. Fair is irrelevant.


I thought you said there's never only one person working the daycare?

1 Day care, three rooms (plus the bathroom and the the entry counter room). What if the woman is preocupied and busy, the workers have to be able to accept children, vistitors don't want to drop off babies with men.

On a serious note- What the fuck man WANTS to spend time with children? No normal ones- we are always looking to get away from them.

Yeah I was thinking the same thing.


And-ever see the hidden cams of babysitters abusing kids? Smacking and shaking infants?

Always women.....

There are some mean ass women out there watching kids, my maternal grandmother was one... she regularly beat a little girl she took care of(years ago, in the 50's), but she wasn't neccessarily nice to her own. I'd do my best to not be in the position of needing ANY outside help with my child if I had one.

He's told that women he doesn't know feel uncomfortable leaving their two month old baby with him and instead take the baby into the service with them instead using the daycare service, but if a woman is there the visitor will feel more likely to utilize the day-care service. Facts are facts, like them or not. We aren't doing the service to prove a political point, we're offering a free service for their convenience.

Would you offer free pork meals to poor Muslims just to make a point?


Two men do not work together, two women can. It's sexist, I support it anyway because families like women watching their kids better then men watching them. Fair is irrelevant.



I've got dreadlocks- some people would rather trust someone else with their academic work to get done than me on first sight- would that be a reason not to let me do the work?

I'm handicapped- some people feel this might weird some kids out when I coach them in sports, and they'd rather have a non-handicapped person (my handicap will not hinder me in doing this sport as well as anyone else) - should the club not let me do the job because of that?

'People would not be as comfortable' is not an argument unless that uncomfort is based on rational thought.

I've got dreadlocks- some people would rather trust someone else with their academic work to get done than me on first sight- would that be a reason not to let me do the work?

I'm handicapped- some people feel this might weird some kids out when I coach them in sports, and they'd rather have a non-handicapped person (my handicap will not hinder me in doing this sport as well as anyone else) - should the club not let me do the job because of that?

'People would not be as comfortable' is not an argument unless that uncomfort is based on rational thought.

People being comfortable is a very good argument. If you, by your looks (refusing to conform to the salesman or customer service environment requested for the position etc.), and your appearance drives away the customers or otherwise makes them choose not to utilize the service, or if the service is not being accepted by the public because of your grooming etc., then I'm sorry, I'm letting you go if you can’t fix it. It's a very good reason, fair or not.

People being comfortable is a very good argument. If you, by your looks (refusing to conform to the salesman or customer service environment requested for the position etc.), and your appearance drives away the customers or otherwise makes them choose not to utilize the service, or if the service is not being accepted by the public because of your grooming etc., then I'm sorry, I'm letting you go if you can’t fix it. It's a very good reason, fair or not.

Okay, I should not have used the one with the hair (nice how you never touched on the other one, btw), for two reasons:

a) There is indeed a difference in situations you can change, and things you cannot (like sex/gender).

b) There is a difference in services where you have 'real clients', and you are a profit-maximizing and professional organization, or whether you organize a day care for the goddamn convenience of the 'clients', unpaid for.

Okay, I should not have used the one with the hair (nice how you never touched on the other one, btw), for two reasons:

a) There is indeed a difference in situations you can change, and things you cannot (like sex/gender).

b) There is a difference in services where you have 'real clients', and you are a profit-maximizing and professional organization, or whether you organize a day care for the goddamn convenience of the 'clients', unpaid for.

Organizing day care IS for real clients, only the profits are measured not in money but in how many people utilize it.

BTW: I didn't touch the handicap scenario not because I was afraid of it but that one was right. IF a handicapped person can perform the duty and they meet the credentials in every other manner, of course they should get the job... I can't even imagine anyone complaining about a handicapped person doing the work unless it is a question about emergency evacuation of getting the children out in a fire or something (picking them up out of cribs and carrying multiple kids etc.). But a wheelchair bound person might be able to carry more kids for all I know (more places to sit them) ;)

I signed up to a website in order to find a good babysitter. I noticed immediately that all the candidates, without exception are female. That doesn't suprise me much, considering the fears of parents, and the strong bias against males in child-care situations.

The website sends you a sort of guide for choosing a sitter. These sections jumped out at me:

"The vast majority of all physical and sexual abuse is committed by males. Statistically, your child is at a greater risk from male babysitters / nannies than from female babysitters / nannies.

Here are some statistical resources for more information regarding this:
- http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2005000.pdf
- http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/85-224-XIE/85-224-XIE2004000.pdf
- http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/189102.pdf "


"Be cautious of male babysitters. There are lots of wonderful male caregivers but the majority that commit crimes against children do not have a criminal record and have experience working with children. Be careful of men who always volunteer to baby-sit and who are more interested in your child's friendship than yours. This could be a warning sign."

What do you think about male babysitters...and the way that male babysitters have been represented by this site?

I think that male babysitters are the concept of the Devil. I mean, really! Everyone knows that all men are perverts and want to rape innocent little children! Jeeze!

Wow...... it may be hard to actually think but when you do on a regular basis it's hard not to think.

Not all men are pervs. Not all women are nice to kids. I never had a male baby-sitter, not even when I was living in the UK (then again, that may not be too surprising). When I moved back over to the States though male sitters were unheard of, but then again I live in the Northeastern North Carolina area, and we're probably the most backward place on the entire East Coast.

In fact, a guy in my class was locked in a closet by his baby-sitter, and another kid I've heard is schiznophrenic and has episodes where he thinks he's being locked in a closet again, presumably because his baby-sitter locked him in a closet a few too many times. (I'll have to check this, I heard it from most of the kids in my class who live near him).

:(

sexist and an irrational fear. but when caring for a child some irrational fears are justified

Whoever wrote that should burn in fiery hell and I hope all their children are raped by female babysitters just to proove them wrong. What a bunch of ignorant, sexist assholes.

Seriously, if a female babysitter EVER MENTIONED that "more abusive babysitters are male" she would go out the door. I would assume she was either sexist, and therefore a bad influence on my children, or she was trying to allay suspicion from herself.

I'm a cub scout leader and part of the training centered on child sexual abuse.

Most of it was making you aware never to put yourself in a situation where you could even be accused. All meetings must have at least two leaders present, parents are encouraged to participate. If there arent two adults available-there is no meeting/function.

You are never to be alone with any boy-in a room, a tent, the restroom-with the exception of your own son.

I'm involved because I wouldnt just dump my kid somewhere for an hour on monday night, or for a day trip or overnighter. I'm always there.

Apparently, there are enough false accusations or suspicions to ruin people's lives too.The videos they show are probably more harmful than good though. BSA training videos tend to be unintentional comedic goldmines...

They train you to abuse children?! :eek:

Cub Scouts? Funny, in Girl Scouts they taught us how to actually take care of children.

So that may be where the stereotype comes from.... ;)

Organizing day care IS for real clients, only the profits are measured not in money but in how many people utilize it.

BTW: I didn't touch the handicap scenario not because I was afraid of it but that one was right. IF a handicapped person can perform the duty and they meet the credentials in every other manner, of course they should get the job... I can't even imagine anyone complaining about a handicapped person doing the work unless it is a question about emergency evacuation of getting the children out in a fire or something (picking them up out of cribs and carrying multiple kids etc.). But a wheelchair bound person might be able to carry more kids for all I know (more places to sit them) ;)

But this is exactly the thing, a male person can do the same job just as well as any female person could, it is only some people's irrational fear that is your reason..
And I bet you all I can offer at the moment that people would be A LOT less willing / comfortable to leave their children in the care of a handicapped person than they would with a non-handicapped one, for no other reason than general weirded-out ness and whatnot.

I think male babysitters can do just as good a job as female babysitters, but alas, society tends to put their trust into women to get the job done right, at least in childcare.

I feel bad for the males who would want to babysit, or teach, or be in a profession that centers around children in any way, because there will always be questions that aren't necessarily going to be asked of females.

That being said...I know, and I'll say it up front, that I would hire a female babysitter over a male one, simply to cut down on the natural worries leaving your child in the care of others brings.

I feel bad about this discrimination, but there you have it :(

However, the characterisation in the site bothers me...I can't imagine a male even bothering to sign up with them.

Sadly, people don't seem to consider that women can be child molesters, too. You need to be careful of WHOMEVER you leave kids with.

'People would not be as comfortable' is not an argument unless that uncomfort is based on rational thought.

Unfortunately, when it comes to your kids, rationality isn't always invoked. Hence the many, many kids who are so fucked up :D

But this is exactly the thing, a male person can do the same job just as well as any female person could, it is only some people's irrational fear that is your reason..

A single male person cannot meet the 'credentials' in this case for the job, handicapped or otherwise. Irrational fear is irrelevant, IF they stop using the service, the service co-coordinator must find a solution to the problem or close down.

I think I didn't make something clear earlier, from re-reading Dem's questions about the situation I see the error of my description of the situation. The room is occupied by TWO volunteers, these volunteers may only be one persons (both women/mothers) but a good percentage of the time there are two women and two men working, both women and their husbands. Sometimes two women and one man, but never one woman and one man, that represents only 1 worker unit then. Most volunteer units are a couple, and some are women only, but none are men only. And the work force calls for two worker units at all times (so it might be two to four people), sorry for any confusion from my lack of proper description.

And I bet you all I can offer at the moment that people would be A LOT less willing / comfortable to leave their children in the care of a handicapped person than they would with a non-handicapped one, for no other reason than general weirded-out ness and whatnot.

Perhaps you are right. I honestly don't think it would be a problem, but I could be wrong. Working with differently enabled people at my work place, which does involve predominately working a customer service office, I never even really considered the reaction of the public at large might have. My work place customer/public is entirely academic people, college and university people students and staff and faculty and visitors to the two campuses etc., and these people don't seem to react negatively (or perhaps have become accustomed to it?) to the differently enabled people I’ve employed at our office. But I capitulate that discussion to your knowledge in the matter.

Organizing day care IS for real clients, only the profits are measured not in money but in how many people utilize it.

BTW: I didn't touch the handicap scenario not because I was afraid of it but that one was right. IF a handicapped person can perform the duty and they meet the credentials in every other manner, of course they should get the job... I can't even imagine anyone complaining about a handicapped person doing the work unless it is a question about emergency evacuation of getting the children out in a fire or something (picking them up out of cribs and carrying multiple kids etc.). But a wheelchair bound person might be able to carry more kids for all I know (more places to sit them) ;)

SO you say if a handicapped person can preform the duty and meet the credentials in every other manner of course they should get the job...

But if this is day care and it is a man that can perform the duty and meet the credentials in every other manner ... they should not get the job?

SO you say if a handicapped person can preform the duty and meet the credentials in every other manner of course they should get the job...

But if this is day care and it is a man that can perform the duty and meet the credentials in every other manner ... they should not get the job?

Correct. The single man application does NOT meet the credentials for the position. One of the requirements is being able to make the women visitor/customer comfortable enough with you to actually allow you, the worker, to watch their two month old baby (for example). Thus, the man does NOT meet the credentials in every other manner, in this scenario, handicapped or not they can't have the job because they don't meet the basic requirement, making the customer welcome and comfortable...

Correct. The single man application does NOT meet the credentials for the position. One of the requirements is being able to make the women visitor/customer comfortable enough with you to actually allow you, the worker, to watch their two month old baby (for example). Thus, the man does NOT meet the credentials in every other manner, in this scenario, handicapped or not they can't have the job because they don't meet the basic requirement, making the customer welcome and comfortable...

Same as if people felt uncomfortable with the handicapped man teaching the sport

Same as if people felt uncomfortable with the handicapped man teaching the sport

Perhaps. But if you have a salesman that can't attract buyers or customers and they all go somewhere else to buy their product, or you have a coach that can't keep his players in the sport and they all leave for different teams, or you have a day care worker that makes all the customer decide to stop using your service, then it is time to let that person go.

In this case that person is the male adult worker.

Would you hire a woman to work in a mans restroom to sell perfume and shoe-shines? Or would the customers start to complain because they don't feel comfortable with a woman in the men’s restroom?

Why do you think we should make visitor women with children feel forced to choose between dropping their children off at a place they do not feel comfortable doing so OR going to a different church?

Perhaps. But if you have a salesman that can't attract buyers or customers and they all go somewhere else to buy their product, or you have a coach that can't keep his players in the sport and they all leave for different teams, or you have a day care worker that makes all the customer decide to stop using your service, then it is time to let that person go.

In this case that person is the male adult worker.

Would you hire a woman to work in a mans restroom to sell perfum and shoeshines? Or would the customers start to complain because they don't feel comfortable with a woman in the mens restroom?

Why do you think we should make visitor women with children feel forced to choose between dropping their children off at a place they do not feel comfortable doing so OR going to a different church?

I would not require a company to do such ... but I also would not be particularly heart broken on any company that chose to discriminate on sex or race

Personal I find it as disgusting that a male is discriminated against tin the daycare as much as the female was/is in the boardroom

Hopefully we can work on changing peoples attitudes rather then pandering to them, could not have been easy being the first major corporations and businesses that hired african Americans either, hopefully a few are brave enough to work against the system and change public opinion

I would not require a company to do such ... but I also would not be particularly heart broken on any company that chose to discriminate on sex or race

Personal I find it as disgusting that a male is discriminated against tin the daycare as much as the female was/is in the boardroom

Hopefully we can work on changing peoples attitudes rather then pandering to them, could not have been easy being the first major corporations and businesses that hired african Americans either, hopefully a few are brave enough to work against the system and change public opinion

I think we are agreed then. As soon as the public opinion changes about accepting single male workers in the day care they themselves are willing to use, I will change my opinion about contracting single male adults to do the work in the day care service we provide.

I think it is rediculous that they assume men are going to molest children. I've worked as a counselor, babysitter, and lifeguard for years. I've never touched a child inappropriatly. It is rediculous to assume that I would, just because I have a penis.
Dude, you're going about being a counsellor, babysitter and lifeguard all wrong.
As a penis-wielding oppressor it's your right, nay your DUTY, to smack, abuse, assault, molest and otherwise denigrate small children in your care whenever and where-ever possible.

I am a 20 year old guy, and I serve in the 'daycare' (something like Sunday School actually) for the K-6, I typically teach the younger half small group for about ten to twenty minutes of which I am sometimes alone (other times there is another younger gentleman there with me) doors closed... this has never occured to me as an issue, and my Church does not seem to have a comfort issue, and I imagine that if a parent complained about uncomfortability, that my church would back me up, since I am good with the kids and all... so maybe more churches need to get staff that will defend males being childcare roles....

and no, I am not a molestor, I really love children, and cannot wait to have some of my own

I think we are agreed then. As soon as the public opinion changes about accepting single male workers in the day care they themselves are willing to use, I will change my opinion about contracting single male adults to do the work in the day care service we provide.
You do know that you're part of said 'Public', don't you?
If everyone is thinking the same as you ("I won't change til everyone else does"), then obviously nothing will change.

But hey, that's fine. Be one of the sheeple, if that's your thing. Always warmer and comfortable remaining in the herd.

I am a 20 year old guy, and I serve in the 'daycare' (something like Sunday School actually) for the K-6, I typically teach the younger half small group for about ten to twenty minutes of which I am sometimes alone (other times there is another younger gentleman there with me) doors closed... this has never occured to me as an issue, and my Church does not seem to have a comfort issue, and I imagine that if a parent complained about uncomfortability, that my church would back me up, since I am good with the kids and all... so maybe more churches need to get staff that will defend males being childcare roles....

and no, I am not a molestor, I really love children, and cannot wait to have some of my own

Actually, we have men sunday school teachers as well, 6 year old and up. I've been talking about infants and toddlers. Our sunday school stuff is in regular classrooms, desks and teachers and writing boards etc., with a window in each door and parents are more than welcome to attend or watch as they want. Men are not restricted in those circumstances.

You do know that you're part of said 'Public', don't you?
If everyone is thinking the same as you ("I won't change til everyone else does"), then obviously nothing will change.

But hey, that's fine. Be one of the sheeple, if that's your thing. Always warmer and comfortable remaining in the herd.

I pretty much agree with you

Considering Poot's church won't let a single-parent father near other parent's children because they don't feel 'comfortable' with him caring for them, I'm surprised his church hasn't attempted to remove the children of said single-parent father and have them put into care.
Because, surely they are at risk too from this monster.


Aren't they?

Actually, we have men sunday school teachers as well, 6 year old and up. I've been talking about infants and toddlers. Our sunday school stuff is in regular classrooms, desks and teachers and writing boards etc., with a window in each door and parents are more than welcome to attend or watch as they want. Men are not restricted in those circumstances.

well, perhaps you should have explicitly said infants and toddlers (of which I have also done at my church, and for family) I have never been alone, but that is because 4-5 toddlers or infants are simply too much for one person at all (I have been called in 'auxilliary' for those)

I imagine parents would be quite welcome to watch the Sunday School thing too, but that is regardless to the complete trust issue that is nonetheless granted....

as for being a fellowship of Christians, your church seems really untrusting....

You do know that you're part of said 'Public', don't you?
If everyone is thinking the same as you ("I won't change til everyone else does"), then obviously nothing will change.

But hey, that's fine. Be one of the sheeple, if that's your thing. Always warmer and comfortable remaining in the herd.

If you are trying to attract customers, the last thing you want to do is alienate them in a way that makes them fearful of their children.

Think about it for a few minutes. Customers, making them feel like they are making a 'bet' with their children's wellbeing as the ante for your bet...


Nope. Call me sheeple all you want, I think it would be suicidal and self-damaging management decision making to choose to make their service bankrupt just to prove a point. It again reminds me of something I said earlier. Why would I insist on making ham sandwiches with my food for the poor program while I was working in a Muslim vicinity? They don’t want my food and my donators are wasting their money because I end up throwing all the sandwiches away. BAD MANAGEMENT if you ask me. Make chicken or beef sandwiches with the same money and feed MORE poor people. But you would rather call me sheeple for making beef sandwiches, while you would continue to make ham sandwiches just to not surrender to peer pressure?

Considering Poot's church won't let a single-parent father near other parent's children because they don't feel 'comfortable' with him caring for them, I'm surprised his church hasn't attempted to remove the children of said single-parent father and have them put into care.
Because, surely they are at risk too from this monster.


Aren't they?

I absolutely agree... maybe it should be a federal regulation, that when a mother is unfit to be a primary caretaker, and the desicion would otherwise fall to the now-single father... he should just be jailed for the molestation that he will no doubt commit, and the children given to foster homes....

If you are trying to attract customers, the last thing you want to do is alienate them in a way that makes them fearful of their children.

Think about it for a few minutes. Customers, making them feel like they are making a 'bet' with their children's wellbeing as the ante for your bet...


Nope. Call me sheeple all you want, I think it would be suicidal and self-damaging management decision making to choose to make their service bankrupt just to prove a point. It again reminds me of something I said earlier. Why would I insist on making ham sandwiches with my food for the poor program while I was working in a Muslim vicinity? They don’t want my food and my donators are wasting their money because I end up throwing all the sandwiches away. BAD MANAGEMENT if you ask me. Make chicken or beef sandwiches with the same money and feed MORE poor people. But you would rather call me sheeple for making beef sandwiches, while you would continue to make ham sandwiches just to not surrender to peer pressure?

But with your analogy the only harm done is that there is a different menu. In the case of baby sitting there is a whole gender of potentially qualified care providers left scrounging for work.

There is direct harm to a bunch of people in pandering to the public

well, perhaps you should have explicitly said infants and toddlers (of which I have also done at my church, and for family) I have never been alone, but that is because 4-5 toddlers or infants are simply too much for one person at all (I have been called in 'auxilliary' for those)

I imagine parents would be quite welcome to watch the Sunday School thing too, but that is regardless to the complete trust issue that is nonetheless granted....

as for being a fellowship of Christians, your church seems really untrusting....

Actually, I DID say children under six. As to untrusting, why should a vistor for the first time trust us? We try to comfort them, not ourselves. Nice of you to judge us negatively though, that says something too doesn't it.

If you are trying to attract customers, the last thing you want to do is alienate them in a way that makes them fearful of their children.

Think about it for a few minutes. Customers, making them feel like they are making a 'bet' with their children's wellbeing as the ante for your bet...


Nope. Call me sheeple all you want, I think it would be suicidal and self-damaging management decision making to choose to make their service bankrupt just to prove a point. It again reminds me of something I said earlier. Why would I insist on making ham sandwiches with my food for the poor program while I was working in a Muslim vicinity? They don’t want my food and my donators are wasting their money because I end up throwing all the sandwiches away. BAD MANAGEMENT if you ask me. Make chicken or beef sandwiches with the same money and feed MORE poor people. But you would rather call me sheeple for making beef sandwiches, while you would continue to make ham sandwiches just to not surrender to peer pressure?

YOU ARE A CHURCH... NOT A STORE! should you not concern yourselves with setting right the societal wrongs that plague America, rather than giving in to them because mass hysteria says its a good idea... if people don't like it, I imagine there are other 'churches' that would accomodate them....

Actually, I DID say children under six. As to untrusting, why should a vistor for the first time trust us? We try to comfort them, not ourselves. Nice of you to judge us negatively though, that says something too doesn't it.

why should a visitor trust you? are you aware of Christian doctrine? you are supposed to be an assemblage of believers that are closer than biological family... but trust is out of the question... yeah...

But with your analogy the only harm done is that there is a different menu. In the case of baby sitting there is a whole gender of potentially qualified care providers left scrounging for work.

There is direct harm to a bunch of people in pandering to the public

There is no direct harm to the workforce of daycare providers at our church, there we are talking about accepting volunteer, unpaid workers, to be trained by us and then allowed to work in our day care

As to the out of work babysitters you mentioned, WHO and where are these scrounging for work hoards of men/boys looking for employment as babysitters? Most babysitters I know are in middle or high school girls and they get paid dollars by the hour without taxes.

Nice of you to judge us negatively though, that says something too doesn't it.

I said it 'seems'... which is completely true as I merely gave my own perspective from what you have said to me

anyone else agree that not trusting men is rather distrustful?

There is not direct harm, we are talking about accepting volunteer, unpaid worders, to traind and then allow to work in the day care. As to the baby sitters, WHO and where are these scrounging for work hords of men/boys looking for employment as babysitters? Most babysitters I know are in middle or high school girls and they get paid dollars by the hour without taxes.

That is what is often hoped for but, there are a ton of organized daycare providers out there. Specially during working hours.

There is not direct harm, we are talking about accepting volunteer, unpaid worders, to traind and then allow to work in the day care. As to the baby sitters, WHO and where are these scrounging for work hords of men/boys looking for employment as babysitters? Most babysitters I know are in middle or high school girls and they get paid dollars by the hour without taxes.

merely because it does not change their employment status does not mean it does not harm them... if my church did not trust me I would feel terrible, and worth less as a person... but your right, because I could still have a job I would not possibly be harmed by being judged by my genitalia

why should a visitor trust you? are you aware of Christian doctrine? you are supposed to be an assemblage of believers that are closer than biological family... but trust is out of the question... yeah...

Trust within the christian community? And you think we dont have enough of it, but you yourself, right this very moment, look at us from a vantage point of words on an internet forum and ALREADY you are against us. Interesting, where is your Christian love and acceptance for other Christians?

Trust within the christian community? And you think we dont have enough of it, but you yourself, right this very moment, look at us from a vantage point of words on an internet forum and ALREADY you are against us. Interesting, where is your Christian love and acceptance for other Christians?

I think 'against' is a strong word, I disagree with your flagrant sexism, and regardless, you are laying out the policy by which your church is governed... unless you are a poor representative of your church it seems that I have every right hold you accountable (another thing we as Christians are called to do) about following the ways of a world we are supposed to seperate ourselves from....

If the world says men are psychopathic child molestors, instead of saying 'the customer is always right' we need to take a stand and say 'no, that is not right, and we will not follow that kind of doctrine as it betrays our Saviour'

merely because it does not change their employment status does not mean it does not harm them... if my church did not trust me I would feel terrible, and worth less as a person... but your right, because I could still have a job I would not possibly be harmed by being judged by my genitalia

People are judged by their genitalia all the time. Should I hire you to work in the girls high school locker room to hand out the towels? No, I will not. Be as insulted as you want and say it is sexism because that would be exactly correct. I hire women servicing women and men for servicing positions that people are happy to have a man help them. Trust is NOT the issue. You create a red herring, a strawman to pretend that you are wronged unfairly.

The truth is, women leaving their baby’s with a stranger at a daycare want that stranger to be another woman. Whether you like it or not.

I think 'against' is a strong word, I disagree with your flagrant sexism, and regardless, you are laying out the policy by which your church is governed... unless you are a poor representative of your church it seems that I have every right hold you accountable (another thing we as Christians are called to do) about following the ways of a world we are supposed to seperate ourselves from....

If the world says men are psychopathic child molestors, instead of saying 'the customer is always right' we need to take a stand and say 'no, that is not right, and we will not follow that kind of doctrine as it betrays our Saviour'

We do allow men to work in the day care. Provided they are married AND working with their wives while they are with the children.

People are judged by their genitalia all the time. Should I hire you to work in the girls high school locker room to hand out the towels? No, I will not. Be as insulted as you want and say it is sexism because that would be exactly correct. I hire women servicing women and men for servicing positions that people are happy to have a man help them. Trust is NOT the issue. You create a red herring, a strawman to pretend that you are wronged unfairly.

The truth is, women leaving their baby’s with a stranger at a daycare want that stranger to be another woman. Whether you like it or not.

right... so propogation of harmful stereotypes is ok so long as it is popular... gotcha.....

We do allow men to work in the day care. Provided they are married AND working with their wives while they are with the children.

do you only allow married women who are working only with their husbands to work?

People are judged by their genitalia all the time. Should I hire you to work in the girls high school locker room to hand out the towels? No, I will not. (...) You create a red herring, a strawman to pretend that you are wronged unfairly.

The truth is, women leaving their baby’s with a stranger at a daycare want that stranger to be another woman. Whether you like it or not.

but you know... I set up a straw man... the women's locker room is a women's situation... I assume we are discussing a co-sexual daycare setting? male and female children? I completely understand how because men should not work in a women's locker room, that they should also be strictly limited when working with kids... your deft correlation make perfect sense (that was sarcasm by the way....)

And here I was thinking most places had anti-discrimination laws... Perhaps they don't apply to volunteer organisations. I mean normally with pay disputes and stuff it's fairly hard to prove that gender has an effect but it would seem fairly easy to prove this case. You say that you can't run the service if customers aren't comfortable leaving their children with you? How easy would it be to run if all your assets are owned by an annoyed single father?

do you only allow married women who are working only with their husbands to work?

Nope. We allow women to work without their husbands and we allow teenage girls to work with their mothers or volunteer with their parents permission. I repeat it again, it IS sexist. It IS a sexist role, women alone can do it, men can only do it with their wives. We expect people with babys to volunteer to work there, we don't have volunteers that dont have kids in it.

Men cannot work in a womans lockeroom, women cannot work in a mens locker room. Women don't want men working with their babys unsupervised, men with babies don't feel bad dropping their children off with a mother in the daycare center.

And here I was thinking most places had anti-discrimination laws... Perhaps they don't apply to volunteer organisations. I mean normally with pay disputes and stuff it's fairly hard to prove that gender has an effect but it would seem fairly easy to prove this case. You say that you can't run the service if customers aren't comfortable leaving their children with you? How easy would it be to run if all your assets are owned by an annoyed single father?

I believe... yep, I am pretty sure that I just heard some serious pwnage....

I have an aversion to little kids, as do all males my age that I know.

I would deeply distrust any 20-something male interested in babysitting.

but you know... I set up a straw man... the women's locker room is a women's situation... I assume we are discussing a co-sexual daycare setting? male and female children? I completely understand how because men should not work in a women's locker room, that they should also be strictly limited when working with kids... your deft correlation make perfect sense (that was sarcasm by the way....)

Who do you think is striping the baby naked to change their diaper? How is this NOT like a womens locker room?

I believe... yep, I am pretty sure that I just heard some serious pwnage....

I believe you spoke too soon.

Nope. We allow women to work without their husbands and we allow teenage girls to work with their mothers or volunteer with their parents permission. I repeat it again, it IS sexist. It IS a sexist role, women alone can do it, men can only do it with their wives. We expect people with babys to volunteer to work there, we don't have volunteers that dont have kids in it.

Men cannot work in a womans lockeroom, women cannot work in a mens locker room. Women don't want men working with their babys unsupervised, men with babies don't feel bad dropping their children off with a mother in the daycare center.

so promoting sexism is ok, and acceptable to Christianity? Good, its about time we removed the female right to vote... expecially since at one point men felt uncomfortable with female sufferage.... and again your locker room comparison is completely null and void as there are practical sexual reasons for such discrimination... but since men are attracted to women (and thus cannot work in a female locker room) they must also be molestors and unable to work with children
By the way didn't Jesus hang out with children, he was assumably single and childless, that means Jesus must also somehow be bad because you know... logic clearly states that men and children just don't mix

Who do you think is striping the baby naked to change their diaper? How is this NOT like a womens locker room?

locker rooms have a diaper change service? yeah, didnt; think so... thats why

I believe you spoke too soon.

I really don't

so promoting sexism is ok, and acceptable to Christianity? Good, its about time we removed the female right to vote... expecially since at one point men felt uncomfortable with female sufferage.... and again your locker room comparison is completely null and void as there are practical sexual reasons for such discrimination... but since men are attracted to women (and thus cannot work in a female locker room) they must also be molestors and unable to work with children
By the way didn't Jesus hang out with children, he was assumably single and childless, that means Jesus must also somehow be bad because you know... logic clearly states that men and children just don't mix

How do you change a diaper without taking their pants off?

Who do you think is striping the baby naked to change their diaper? How is this NOT like a womens locker room?

Then are you supporting segregating the baby's by sex as well

If stripping a female baby to change them is like a girls locker room then striping a boy to change them is like a boys locker room. And apparently by your logic females should not be changing them?

locker rooms have a diaper change service? yeah, didnt; think so... thats why

Are you drunk or somthing? How do YOU change a diaper for the Baby unless you undress them?

I have an aversion to little kids, as do all males my age that I know.

I would deeply distrust any 20-something male interested in babysitting.

you personally? that is completely your choice... some people are biased... but for a Christian organisation to actively promote sexism... that is my problem

I believe you spoke too soon.

Wait I'm confused. You tell him he spoke too soon in applauding my post but I can't find where you actually adressed the post itself.... Am I going blind or what?

Then are you supporting segregating the baby's by sex as well

If stripping a female baby to change them is like a girls locker room then striping a boy to change them is like a boys locker room. And apparently by your logic females should not be changing them?

I already told you what we do. Women work it and men are allowed to work provided they are with a woman.

Are you drunk or somthing? How do YOU change a diaper for the Baby unless you undress them?

what? my point isn't that nudity could possibly be involved, females are often attracted to nales, how are they allowed to change male diapers?

you personally? that is completely your choice... some people are biased... but for a Christian organisation to actively promote sexism... that is my problem

WTF?

Not my choice, my indiscriminate inclination.

And Christians organizations, if you are blind and hadn't noticed, are middle eastern camel-tribe, mud-hut sexists, as is evidenced by their refusal to make women priests, &c.

Wait I'm confused. You tell him he spoke too soon in applauding my post but I can't find where you actually adressed the post itself.... Am I going blind or what?

more pwnage was just heard....

Wait I'm confused. You tell him he spoke too soon in applauding my post but I can't find where you actually adressed the post itself.... Am I going blind or what?

Your post was pointless. Why would we be working IF the church was owned by a man that was offended by the policy? The policy wouldn't exist, they church wouldn't exist as it does, what nonsense. But the man wouldn't have any customers at his church's daycare I'll tell you that.

WTF?

Not my choice, my indiscriminate inclination.

And Christians organizations, if you are blind and hadn't noticed, are middle eastern camel-tribe, mud hut sexists, as is evidenced by their refusal to make women priests, &c.

I don't believe in the the organisation of priesthood, nor much else of the Catholic Church, and I disagree with sexism... so does my church I believe

Your post was pointless. Why would we be working IF the church was owned by a man that was offended by the policy? The policy wouldn't exist, they church wouldn't exist as it does, what nonsense. But the man wouldn't have any customers at his church's daycare I'll tell you that.

....You can't possibly have not gotten my point that much. Well you sorta got it there, the church WOULDN'T be able to run the day care if it was taken away by an angry man.

I don't think I see this.

Unfortunately, I believe that there are about as many sick and twisted women out there as there are such men, and with kids this young, I don't think that there are that many circumstances that, uh, would make it that much more unlikely or 'difficult' for a woman to commit any such crimes as alluded to against the kids, as there may be once we talk older kids / adults.

I'm sorry if this came out wrong, and/or not clear enough.

I agree. At least as many women in these professions are like this.
Things that alarm us with 'strange' things involving a male may not alarm us if it involves a female.

what? my point isn't that nudity could possibly be involved, females are often attracted to nales, how are they allowed to change male diapers?

You think women are attracted to infant baby’s penises? What the heck.


You have just become the perfect poster child for WHY we don't allow young single men to work in the day care and change baby diapers.

I don't believe in the the organisation of priesthood, nor much else of the Catholic Church, and I disagree with sexism... so does my church I believe

Well, your middle eastern camel-tribe mud-hut religion, if you hadnt noticed, disagrees with whatever drivel your church pukes out.

I yield to the camel mud hut god, Jehova, YHVH, Allah, Corinthians 14, &c.

....You can't possibly have not gotten my point that much. Well you sorta got it there, the church WOULDN'T be able to run the day care if it was taken away by an angry man.

The court will disagree with you. which single man is going to go to court and say I want the right to change the diapers of other people's children infants, and I don't want them to be able to tell me I can't. And YOU think the court will agree with this man? And you think me calling your post pointless was wrong?

You think women are attracted to infant baby’s penises? What the heck.


You have just become the perfect poster child for WHY we don't allow young single men to work in the day care and change baby diapers.

I disagree with unfair sexism... so that is why you dont allow men to do daycare? because they oppose sexism? and 'what they heck' 'cause you know... all I want is to see infant vagina? no! (nor infant penis' just to make cover myself)

How could I be a 'poster child' of something that I don't represent? I am not a molester... and that is your fear right?

I'd say 'nice try' but that really wasn't

The court will disagree with you. which single man is going to go to court and say I want the right to change the diapers of other people's children infants, and I don't want them to be able to tell me I can't. And YOU think the court will agree with this man? And you think me calling your post pointless was wrong?

who mentioned US judicial courts or process's?

Are you drunk or somthing? How do YOU change a diaper for the Baby unless you undress them?

You might want to explain what you're getting at here a little better. Your locker room analogy suggests that you're arguing that adults should not be permitted to see members of the opposite sex naked, even if they're babies. If this is not your argument (as I would assume it's not, seeing as it's not only bizarre but seems, if anything, to mandate volunteers of both genders), could you please tell us what your argument is?

The court will disagree with you. which single man is going to go to court and say I want the right to change the diapers of other people's children infants, and I don't want them to be able to tell me I can't. And YOU think the court will agree with this man? And you think me calling your post pointless was wrong?

It's not about the job its about a thing called principle. I think a lot of single male parents would be very angry being told that they can't do something cause they statistically may be a child molester. Not to mention the fact that he/they stand to make a lot of money from it, lets face it people are greedy. And do I think that the courts would side with someone who has been blatantly discriminated against due to their gender, yes yes I do.

I have to go... which makes me sad because I have yet to see a valid point for propogating Christian sexism regarding childcare... but I will subscribe, so I might yet return....

You think women are attracted to infant baby’s penises? What the heck.


You have just become the perfect poster child for WHY we don't allow young single men to work in the day care and change baby diapers.

You think men are attracted to infant baby's vagina's? What the heck.

"The vast majority of all physical and sexual abuse is committed by males. Statistically, your child is at a greater risk from male babysitters / nannies than from female babysitters / nannies.
What do you think about male babysitters...and the way that male babysitters have been represented by this site?
In the UK the two crimes that women are more likely to commit than men are Shoplifting and Child Abuse, so I am not sure the generalization of child abuse is completely true, and possibly based on the site Authors prejudice rather than evidence

But TBH - I would also rather have a female babysitter than a male one.

But that said - I wonder if a man would ever manage to successfully sue for sex-discrimination. Can you imagine if a website put up a warning about women that discouraged people from employing them over the male options to the same level this site does not getting sued?


I think this will die down as more and more men go into these fields. Unfortunately, just like any type of professional discrimination, it'll take a while.

In the UK this is caucing less and less men to go into teaching. The trend is being strengthened with time, not weakened.

There are two issues for male teachers:
1. An assumption that they are out to abuse - even in teacher training male teachers are discouraged from having any physical contact while female teachers are allowed to pick-up or comfort small children with cuts form falls etc. Male teachers are actively told in training that is is innappropriate for them as a male to touch a child, female teachers are not constrained by this. quote from paper a few weeks ago:

Female trainee teacher interviewed for article about discrimination against male teachers:
"There was this guy on the course who was comforting a kid who had fallen over, I'm not saying there was anything going on, or that it was wrong but I just thought 'oh dear - that does not look right'."
(as far as I can remember)

2. Watercooler Talk bites men on the ass. Just as women have found it difficult to break into corperate work in part due to social exclusion as the male dominated workplaces focused chat on male subjects, actively and passively excluding female staff - in schools male teachers face exactly the same discrimination through social exclusion, including poorer treatment by female superiors than their female counterparts - e.g. being asked to make coffee/tea for meetings. I guess sexism is something that both genders are happy to apply when given the oppertunity.



Another issue with the men vs women regarding child abuse - when a man abuses a child he is regarded (rightly so) as an evil SOB who deserves to be locked away with his balls cut off. When a woman abuses a child it is often viewed that she is emotionally damaged and is acting due to past trauma/mental illness and is a victim who needs care and understanding.

We aren't doing the service to prove a political point, we're offering a free service for their convenience.

The way I see it, then, is that your clients have two options:

1. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, accept the free offer and put aside prejudice (you know, like the old guy says every week); or

2. Take their business elsewhere and pay exorbitant fees for daycare,

I think you'll find most people would go with 1. Even if they don't, a volunteer organisation that doesn't charge fees doesn't lose anything, do they.

Have you explained yet why you think people would be uncomfortable with men? You're not exactly providing an atmosphere to test this theory....

Men should be allowed to babysit without being arrested or suspected. What makes men more prone to being a psychopatic child molesters than women? Nothing! I tell you some people are just being sterotypical sexist idiots.
Because many people are sterotypical sexist people, parents are afraid that leaving their child with a stranger that is male is very dangerous. This may derived from the fact that television usually show men as the rapist, mollestor, criminal making parents untrustworthy of them and seeing that usually only girls can babysit.


And someone should tell the Babyblues artist to write a strip on male babysisters. its a great idea

Correct. The single man application does NOT meet the credentials for the position. One of the requirements is being able to make the women visitor/customer comfortable enough with you to actually allow you, the worker, to watch their two month old baby (for example). Thus, the man does NOT meet the credentials in every other manner, in this scenario, handicapped or not they can't have the job because they don't meet the basic requirement, making the customer welcome and comfortable...

So... If some of your church members don't feel comfortable letting a Black woman look after their kids then you should not let Black women work alone there?

Really - It does sound like the discomfort felt by your church members is created by your church through this policy which implies that all men are likely potential sex offenders while pretending that women are incapeable of sexual abuse of children.

The way I see it, then, is that your clients have two options:

1. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, accept the free offer and put aside prejudice (you know, like the old guy says every week); or

2. Take their business elsewhere and pay exorbitant fees for daycare,

I think you'll find most people would go with 1. Even if they don't, a volunteer organisation that doesn't charge fees doesn't lose anything, do they.

Have you explained yet why you think people would be uncomfortable with men? You're not exactly providing an atmosphere to test this theory....

The daycare service I'm talking about is run by volunteers (the volunteers being the parents that use it regularly), the service is open for only the 4 hours or so on Sunday mornings (during the 2 morning services and the Sunday school hour). With that in mind, the customer will choose option 2 and take their patronage elsewhere, because they can carry the baby with them if they want (we don't have any rules that they can't take the baby into the service, we only ask that they take the child into the lobby if it becomes disruptive) or try a different church the next week. And from experience I can tell you that some mothers with newborns will carry the child with them for many months before they feel comfortable giving their child to even an old friend at the baby care, and other moms will check in their two week old infant the first time they bring them to church ~ usually the first time mothers are more protective but by the time they are on their second or third child they start using the service right away. That’s a rule of thumb only though, I’ve seen some very new mothers looking forward to enjoying an hour or two of worship time knowing their arms free, their child being only a few feet away and with people they trust and there is nothing wrong with that.

The new to the church visitor usually doesn’t use the baby care service, usually. They are welcome of course, but I admit that even I wouldn’t likely feel comfortable on the first visit at a place to entrust the care of a very small infant to people I’ve never seen or met before.

From seeing who and when the service is utilized by people and then getting to know them, you find out what people think now vs. what they thought when they first started going there etc. People like to interview the babycare center workers and it’s coordinator before they start using the service, in fact, I’d say MOST people ask what background check has been done on the men that are allowed to work there. That’s how I know they feel uncomfortable handing their children over to men, they say so.

You had just dragged up a thread that is quite dead

I think we're missing the REAL statistic here: 100% of child molesters were born. Stop having babies, and the problem dries up in about 80 years.

Seriously though, that kind of logic would be like a woman deciding not to date attractive, successful, 20-30 year old white men, because I'm pretty sure that's the group your average serial killer comes from.

A majority of a minority is still a small number.

I guess you could argue that a woman is more instinctively likely to protect children over a man who is watching progeny that aren't his own, but I think I speak for most men when I say if I was put in charge of someone's kids, I'd do my best to protect them from whatever came up.

Plus, men can have strong care-giving instincts! Just like the time I punched this little kid who hit my little brother.

Just kidding.

Nice to see Sexism is alive and well. I love kids, but I hate other people's kids. Spoiled little bastards.

I have watched children before for family, but it's not something I particularly enjoy, mostly 'cause they're spoiled. I would like to have kids one day though, and raise them to not be horrifying little monsters.

Nice to see Sexism is alive and well. I love kids, but I hate other people's kids. Spoiled little bastards.
I have watched children before for family, but it's not something I particularly enjoy, mostly 'cause they're spoiled. I would like to have kids one day though, and raise them to not be horrifying little monsters.I wonder what others consider your kids as then.

I wonder what others consider your kids as then.

http://packy.dardan.com/walky/albums/album11/alm.gif

The truth is, women leaving their baby’s with a stranger at a daycare want that stranger to be another woman. Whether you like it or not.

Absolutely.

Though I don't think I would ever actually leave my children in that kind of situation...IKEA for example has a sort of daycare while you go shopping. No thanks...great idea, but no thanks.

I agree. At least as many women in these professions are like this.
Things that alarm us with 'strange' things involving a male may not alarm us if it involves a female.

I disagree with your point.

There are not as many men as women in these professions to begin with.

This says that the majority of abuse will come from females...but the stats prove that males are more likely to abuse. That may sound contradictory but it isn't.

If you break down the stats and say you have a x% chance that the females will abuse children, and an ASTRONOMICALLY higher % that males will, you hire more females. That doesn't mean you'll get rid of abuse period, but it does mean that you've lessened the overall risk.

It's sexist. And as Dem pointed out earlier...it will continue to be a proble while the average NON-ABUSIVE male refused to enter these professions, leaving the sick pervs who prey on children to be the ones who seek out these jobs.

A solution? Step up normal men. Get over whatever feelings of inadequacy you may have, get over your OWN sexism which tells you women should be doing it, and get in there and start normalising the relationship between men and children before things get so twisted that it becomes an inherent and unshakeable belief in society that men will always abuse children.

So... If some of your church members don't feel comfortable letting a Black woman look after their kids then you should not let Black women work alone there?

Really - It does sound like the discomfort felt by your church members is created by your church through this policy which implies that all men are likely potential sex offenders while pretending that women are incapeable of sexual abuse of children.

Ok guys, I think you've ganged up on PootWaddle enough. He simply described the situation at this church, and you have all been mercilessly after him since.

This isn't a 'church' stereotype. You want a church stereotype...well, don't let your kids alone with priests, okay? :P There are numerous, voluminous, studies on child abuse. The person is generally known to the child, and is overwhelmingly more likely to be male than female. Yes, you can make a case for women committing a lot of abuse, and frankly, that's bound to happen considering that women are still the primary caregivers of children at every level. But percentage wise, it's the men you need to look out for.

This is a touchy subject, because it is clearly sexism. But frankly, people RIGHTLY believe it is not worth the risk to their children, especially in a situation where the services are provided by volunteers you aren't going to know well. Very strict guidelines are needed in a case like that, less so for more long-term situations.

It isn't as if there are hundreds or thousands of men clamouring to enter these professions. Teach? A guy teach? Why the hell would you do that when you can make three times as much in construction, or another profession? Be a babysitter? What...your arms are broken, you can't go out and make some good coin? This pressure isn't coming from women alone...men are HARD on other men, and on themselves. They still want to be the primary breadwinner, and that does not mean entering into the low paying child-care professions.

So those going in face overwhelming obstacles, from within, and from without. Men going into child-care are going to have to prove themselves again and again, and work harder than women...just like women who have entered non-traditional fields have had to. It sucks. It's horrible. But fucking do it. You can't legislate this problem away, there needs to be a shift not only in the minds of those who fear men being around children...but in the minds of men themselves who don't see child-care as a worthy profession for someone with a penis.

It isn't as if there are hundreds or thousands of men clamouring to enter these professions. Teach? A guy teach? Why the hell would you do that when you can make three times as much in construction, or another profession?
So those going in face overwhelming obstacles, from within, and from without. Men going into child-care are going to have to prove themselves again and again, and work harder than women...just like women who have entered non-traditional fields have had to.

In the UK there are plenty of men who go into teaching, or try. The pay is actually pretty decent with great holiday perks. It sure beats a LOT of other jobs out there.

However many men who try to go into teaching give up during trainig in the face of sexist attitudes and constant fears of ending up in gourt if they touch a child who fell over or the like. As I said earlier - there is also now a glass-ceiling for men in the teaching profession. But while women had to counnter a social glass ceiling and an assumption they were not good enough for the job, men have to counter a glass ceiling and an assumption they are all likely potential baby-rapists - something that can't be disproven regardless of hard work.

I would like to note also - the most recent cases of teachers having underage sex with their children in the UK have been female teachers having sex with adolescent male students.

There are a few male teachers at the preschool program that I teach at, the insurance says they cannot be alone with children unless there is a woman in the room.....

Thats downright wrong. If it is true such precautions should be made against women too. Didnt people realise when Myra Hindly came along that actually women are just as bad as men in this regard?

Ok guys, I think you've ganged up on PootWaddle enough. He simply described the situation at this church, and you have all been mercilessly after him since.

This isn't a 'church' stereotype. You want a church stereotype...well, don't let your kids alone with priests, okay? :P There are numerous, voluminous, studies on child abuse. The person is generally known to the child, and is overwhelmingly more likely to be male than female. Yes, you can make a case for women committing a lot of abuse, and frankly, that's bound to happen considering that women are still the primary caregivers of children at every level. But percentage wise, it's the men you need to look out for.

This is a touchy subject, because it is clearly sexism. But frankly, people RIGHTLY believe it is not worth the risk to their children, especially in a situation where the services are provided by volunteers you aren't going to know well. Very strict guidelines are needed in a case like that, less so for more long-term situations.

It isn't as if there are hundreds or thousands of men clamouring to enter these professions. Teach? A guy teach? Why the hell would you do that when you can make three times as much in construction, or another profession? Be a babysitter? What...your arms are broken, you can't go out and make some good coin? This pressure isn't coming from women alone...men are HARD on other men, and on themselves. They still want to be the primary breadwinner, and that does not mean entering into the low paying child-care professions.

So those going in face overwhelming obstacles, from within, and from without. Men going into child-care are going to have to prove themselves again and again, and work harder than women...just like women who have entered non-traditional fields have had to. It sucks. It's horrible. But fucking do it. You can't legislate this problem away, there needs to be a shift not only in the minds of those who fear men being around children...but in the minds of men themselves who don't see child-care as a worthy profession for someone with a penis.

Yet they still have a priest teaching the sex ed class at my old elementary school

The same school I went to to that had a case of three of us, getting molested by said priest. (not only that but they allowed him to preside over a very large congregation and an elementary school after he had been found to be a sex offender by them in the 1970's)

Interestingly enough they do not require adult supervision in the class he helps teach (for the boys)

... but its ok because public perception is not against him ... at least not by the religious people that trust their kids to him

In the UK there are plenty of men who go into teaching, or try. The pay is actually pretty decent with great holiday perks. It sure beats a LOT of other jobs out there.


It might be something to do with the economy here in Alberta too. No man who can make $38 an hour working on the rigs is going to take 5 years of schooling to get a teaching degree.

When I graduated from University with my BEd, the class was composed of perhaps 25% males...most of whom I knew were going into secondary, not primary school. Most of them will likely be, or already are, administration. Most of the women will not advance...either because they don't want to, or because in Education, administration is VERY male-orientated.

Another thing to note...a good 95% of the graduates were white, middle-class. There were FOUR (out of 300) aboriginal graduates. So you have a profession that is overwhelmingly female, white, middle-class when the clients (the students) are not. After a while, that is just the 'norm' and those are the people that will be going into education. I know how having no aboriginal role models in education affected me (to to mention the kind of crap we were taught about ourselves). I can only imagine how such a homogenous group of teachers is going to affect the self-perceptions of the majority of kids who don't fall into that category.

Yes, it's more 'dangerous' for men to be teachers, especially in the younger grades, but again, if those guys drop out and don't teach, they are only making it harder for the guys who want to come after.

It might be something to do with the economy here in Alberta too. No man who can make $38 an hour working on the rigs is going to take 5 years of schooling to get a teaching degree.
In the UK there are plenty better paying jobs for men and women (but teaching does not pay badly) - but those who go into teaching do so as it is a vocation.


Yes, it's more 'dangerous' for men to be teachers, especially in the younger grades, but again, if those guys drop out and don't teach, they are only making it harder for the guys who want to come after.

And while a woman trying to break the glass ceiling might get a bad reference if she chooses to switch to a job in the same profession a man can end up on the sex offenders register, or commonly - dragged through the courts for crimes that are frequently proven innocent of (occasionally to the extent the judge has said the case should never have come before court) but are then unable to get a job teaching and have difficulties getting ANY job afterwards if their employer asks for a reference and why they left their last job - hence the men leaving the profession.

And yet although the most recent teacher-student sex cases here have been female teachers there is no suspicion of women...

although it is true that men do abuse children more, its not like every one that you meet need to abuse children. Is the need for suspicion against men have to be so high?

And while a woman trying to break the glass ceiling might get a bad reference if she chooses to switch to a job in the same profession a man can end up on the sex offenders register, or commonly - dragged through the courts for crimes that are frequently proven innocent of (occasionally to the extent the judge has said the case should never have come before court) but are then unable to get a job teaching and have difficulties getting ANY job afterwards if their employer asks for a reference and why they left their last job - hence the men leaving the profession. Yes, I have a real problem with the damages facing anyone charged with a sexual offence, especially in the situation where the accusation is totally unfounded. It's a serious, horrible risk, one that men do face (it seems) more than women.


And yet although the most recent teacher-student sex cases here have been female teachers there is no suspicion of women... While women are the majority of care-givers, there will of course be more total crimes committed by women...but that doesn't mean the percentages will match. I do agree though that there is a perception that abuse by women isn't as bad as abuse by men, and I think that is wrong.

You know, it occurs to me too...how far this reaches...consider the many coaching scandals of widespread abuse etc...

It's a huge problem, child abuse. We are finally getting to the point as a society where we don't cover it up and blame it on the kids...but we have also on occasion swung the opposite way, believing everything and blaming first, asking later. Where is the balance between the need to protect our children, and the rights of the individual? Hard to say. I'm hoping that the more proactive we become as a society in dealing with the discomfort of this topic, and paying attention to our kids and how their relationships with other adults (or peers) impacts them, that we can teach them NOT to fear everyone mindlessly, but rather, be aware, and cautious but not paralysed.

What do you think about male babysitters...and the way that male babysitters have been represented by this site?

I think male babysitters fall into one of three categories.

1) Men who want to have sex with a mother by being nice to her children.
2) Men who want to have sex with children by being nice to their mother.
3) Metrosexuals.

If the door is closed for noise, someone has to be in there, man or woman? Your choice. We choose the woman when it has to be done, if it's the man in there alone, the door is open, noise or no noise.

And the problem still remains. If leaving a child alone with an adult behind a closed door is a risk, which you are obviously saying it is with the man (since he can't close the door for noise), then it is a risk with ANY adult, male or female. If it is a risk, your church is endangering children by allowing a woman to close the door, even if the child is noisy.

Someone has to accept the kid when they drop them off and sign them in don't they.

Indeed. Any reason that it has to be this man?

I do not think every single father is a danger. I think every single father is less usable by not being an interchangeable resource on the list of volunteers.

He's just as interchangeable as a single mom, or a man or woman whose spouse is out of town/sick/etc.

Yes there is. A single father means a different woman won't be able to work with her own husband. If a different single mother showed up and wanted to work with him, something might be worked out, probably, that's not a rule written in stone. But most people volunteer as couples and the co-ordinator needs as many interchangable parts as possible.

This is contradicted by something you said later:

I think I didn't make something clear earlier, from re-reading Dem's questions about the situation I see the error of my description of the situation. The room is occupied by TWO volunteers, these volunteers may only be one persons (both women/mothers) but a good percentage of the time there are two women and two men working, both women and their husbands. Sometimes two women and one man, but never one woman and one man, that represents only 1 worker unit then. Most volunteer units are a couple, and some are women only, but none are men only. And the work force calls for two worker units at all times (so it might be two to four people), sorry for any confusion from my lack of proper description.

Obviously, having a single father work the daycare does not mean that a woman would have to work without her spouse. It would mean that he came alone (just as a single mom would) and there was another volunteer person or couple. There is no reason that a second person would be necessary, according to what you say here.

FYI: Single women with older kids and an infant, (over 6), don't volunteer either, they don't have anyone to watch their kids in the service if they are in the day care. But it is a sexist equation, I'm not denying it, but I still defend it. It's right.

So you're saying that sexism is right? Men are naturally more of a danger to children than women?

Even you said you would be a suspicious parent.

Indeed. I would be equally suspicious of any person, male or female. I wouldn't endanger my children by assuming that a childcare worker was somehow better because they didn't have a penis.

I think we are agreed then. As soon as the public opinion changes about accepting single male workers in the day care they themselves are willing to use, I will change my opinion about contracting single male adults to do the work in the day care service we provide.

So a church should pander to public opinion, even if that opinion is wrong? By that logic, your church shouldn't preach or hold to anything that isn't general public opinion. After all, being comfortable is obviously more important than being morally right or protecting children.

If you are trying to attract customers, the last thing you want to do is alienate them in a way that makes them fearful of their children.

Think about it for a few minutes. Customers, making them feel like they are making a 'bet' with their children's wellbeing as the ante for your bet...

Let's look at this another way. Suppose you lived in an area that was rather prejudiced against Hispanic men and women. Would your church then be justified in telling Hispanic couples that they cannot volunteer in the church daycare, because people might not want to leave their child with someone who is Latino?

Should a church, of all places, really be perpetuating harmful stereotypes?

We do allow men to work in the day care. Provided they are married AND working with their wives while they are with the children.

What if their wives are occupied and only the men can be at the counter for children being dropped off?

Who do you think is striping the baby naked to change their diaper? How is this NOT like a womens locker room?

For one thing, all babies aren't female. In fact, if you are going to compare this to a locker room, you should make absolutely sure that you always have at least one man and at least one woman working the daycare. That way, a woman can take the female children to the bathroom and change the diapers of female infants and a man can take the male children to the bathroom or change their diapers.

The new to the church visitor usually doesn’t use the baby care service, usually. They are welcome of course, but I admit that even I wouldn’t likely feel comfortable on the first visit at a place to entrust the care of a very small infant to people I’ve never seen or met before.

This contradicts most of what you've said before. You've been incredibly focused on trying to get a first-time visitor to use the service. Now you say that they pretty much never do anyways? Sounds like your waffling a bit here.

Let's look at this another way. Suppose you lived in an area that was rather prejudiced against Hispanic men and women. Would your church then be justified in telling Hispanic couples that they cannot volunteer in the church daycare, because people might not want to leave their child with someone who is Latino?

Should a church, of all places, really be perpetuating harmful stereotypes?

Of course it should. One has to remain faithful to one's history and roots.

i feel sorry for the males who arent interested in children, what are your views on this

Of course it should. One has to remain faithful to one's history and roots.

So best for an organization that preaches love cause harm to hold onto tradition

Seems rather contradictory to their preaching

hey is anyone going to talk i need a topic to talk about because im bored

i feel sorry for the males who arent interested in children, what are your views on this
I kindly suggest reading the thread if you are interested in its topic, and people's opinion on it.
hey is anyone going to talk i need a topic to talk about because im bored
I just as kindly suggest using such marvelous devices like ICQ/msn/AIM or any chatroom if you are interested in getting your butt entertained without even marginally contributing to the topic at hand.

So best for an organization that preaches love cause harm to hold onto tradition

Seems rather contradictory to their preaching

It seems their most esteemed tradition from the very get-go is to have their actions contradictory to their supposed preachings, and/or the other way round- so yes, spot on.

The daycare service I'm talking about is run by volunteers (the volunteers being the parents that use it regularly), the service is open for only the 4 hours or so on Sunday mornings (during the 2 morning services and the Sunday school hour). With that in mind, the customer will choose option 2 and take their patronage elsewhere, because they can carry the baby with them if they want (we don't have any rules that they can't take the baby into the service, we only ask that they take the child into the lobby if it becomes disruptive) or try a different church the next week. And from experience I can tell you that some mothers with newborns will carry the child with them for many months before they feel comfortable giving their child to even an old friend at the baby care, and other moms will check in their two week old infant the first time they bring them to church ~ usually the first time mothers are more protective but by the time they are on their second or third child they start using the service right away. That’s a rule of thumb only though, I’ve seen some very new mothers looking forward to enjoying an hour or two of worship time knowing their arms free, their child being only a few feet away and with people they trust and there is nothing wrong with that.

The new to the church visitor usually doesn’t use the baby care service, usually. They are welcome of course, but I admit that even I wouldn’t likely feel comfortable on the first visit at a place to entrust the care of a very small infant to people I’ve never seen or met before.

From seeing who and when the service is utilized by people and then getting to know them, you find out what people think now vs. what they thought when they first started going there etc. People like to interview the babycare center workers and it’s coordinator before they start using the service, in fact, I’d say MOST people ask what background check has been done on the men that are allowed to work there. That’s how I know they feel uncomfortable handing their children over to men, they say so.


but I thought that the enitre point of yoiur church's sexism was to make it more comfortable for the first-time visitors? (As I recall from earlier posts)

and, if many parents carry their baby's with them anyway will it make that big of an impact if one or two more per service also carry their babys because of a male babysitter?

do you realise you just yourself showed the fallacy of the blatant sexism that you completely support?

but I thought that the enitre point of yoiur church's sexism was to make it more comfortable for the first-time visitors? (As I recall from earlier posts)

and, if many parents carry their baby's with them anyway will it make that big of an impact if one or two more per service also carry their babys because of a male babysitter?

do you realise you just yourself showed the fallacy of the blatant sexism that you completely support?

There was no fallacy. I've said all along, it IS sexism. And I agree with it anyway.

And in order to get the women comfortable enough to want to return to the church each week, we provide a place that they can see each and every week to be a place they can feel comfortable to check their child into.

And in order to get the women comfortable enough to want to return to the church each week, we provide a place that they can see each and every week to be a place they can feel comfortable to check their child into.

So your church doesn't bother to teach against harmful stereotypes? It would rather perpetuate them so that people will be comfortable?

Will your church also teach, for instance, that premarital sex is A-Ok because it would make people who have had it more comfortable in your church? Will they teach that there's nothing wrong with taking the Lord's name in vain because it would make people who regularly use "Jesus Christ!" or "Goddamnit!" as exclamations more comfortable?

And the problem still remains. If leaving a child alone with an adult behind a closed door is a risk, which you are obviously saying it is with the man (since he can't close the door for noise), then it is a risk with ANY adult, male or female. If it is a risk, your church is endangering children by allowing a woman to close the door, even if the child is noisy.

Well, I guess we wouldn’t be good enough for you then and you wouldn’t drop you child off with us because sometimes women are alone with children at our center.


Indeed. Any reason that it has to be this man?

If there is one man and one woman and the woman is changing a diaper and another customer comes in the check in their child, it might have to be a man, thus we need two women there at all times.



He's just as interchangeable as a single mom, or a man or woman whose spouse is out of town/sick/etc.

No he’s not interchangeable. It would be two men and one woman and the woman wouldn’t be able to do anything for fear of leaving the desk… unfair work load. Thus he is not interchangeable by not bringing a desk worker with his work unit.


This is contradicted by something you said later:

Obviously, having a single father work the daycare does not mean that a woman would have to work without her spouse. It would mean that he came alone (just as a single mom would) and there was another volunteer person or couple. There is no reason that a second person would be necessary, according to what you say here. [/QUOTE]

It’s a two woman job and 0, 1 or 2 men to help them. A women WOULD have to work with him or else the other worker unit wouldn’t even be able to go the bathroom herself for not leaving the desk…


So you're saying that sexism is right? Men are naturally more of a danger to children than women?

If men are more of a threat or not I do not know. I suspect they are, but that just means I’ve been influence by our cultures expectations. I know fathers that can’t change their own children’s diapers, and you think I should let them watch other people’s children? I also told you that volunteering was an expectation of the couple that uses the service, but you ignore that to make your points. We have a limited pool of workers to choose from. Single men do not, on their own, help us because they are not a complete worker unit. Sexist or not, it’s the truth.



Indeed. I would be equally suspicious of any person, male or female. I wouldn't endanger my children by assuming that a childcare worker was somehow better because they didn't have a penis.

Maybe you wouldn’t, but show a woman with a two week old baby in her arms two people to entrust her daughter to, one is a large burly calloused fingered man who is doing his very best to be polite and not clumsy, and the other person is another Mom with a baby of her own in the same room, who is she going to want to entrust her baby too and change her baby’s diaper if the need arises, the answer will be self evident 99 out of a 100 times. Pretend you wouldn’t assume the women over the man all you want. Wait until you have a two week old baby and then come back and tell me again.


So a church should pander to public opinion, even if that opinion is wrong? By that logic, your church shouldn't preach or hold to anything that isn't general public opinion. After all, being comfortable is obviously more important than being morally right or protecting children.

False dichotomy. Insulting drivel and meaningless accusation.

Let's look at this another way. Suppose you lived in an area that was rather prejudiced against Hispanic men and women. Would your church then be justified in telling Hispanic couples that they cannot volunteer in the church daycare, because people might not want to leave their child with someone who is Latino?

Should a church, of all places, really be perpetuating harmful stereotypes?


Red Herring. We have Hispanics and African Americans and Asians already working in the center.

Maybe you wouldn’t, but show a woman with a two week old baby in her arms two people to entrust her daughter to, one is a large burly calloused fingered man who is doing his very best to be polite and not clumsy, and the other person is another Mom with a baby of her own in the same room, who is she going to want to entrust her baby too and change her baby’s diaper if the need arises, the answer will be self evident 99 out of a 100 times. Pretend you wouldn’t assume the women over the man all you want. Wait until you have a two week old baby and then come back and tell me again.


If for example your customers felt more comfortable with white daycare workers, would you restrict the number of non-whites working at any one time and the other restrictions that are placed on men?

What if their wives are occupied and only the men can be at the counter for children being dropped off?

Then the other woman form the other worker unit does the counter and the men do whatever needs to be done with the doors open.

For one thing, all babies aren't female. In fact, if you are going to compare this to a locker room, you should make absolutely sure that you always have at least one man and at least one woman working the daycare. That way, a woman can take the female children to the bathroom and change the diapers of female infants and a man can take the male children to the bathroom or change their diapers.

Nope. False dichotomy. The mother of a two week old boy has the same feelings as the mother of the two week old girl.

Red Herring. We have Hispanics and African Americans and Asians already working in the center.

Not a red herring. Simply put, is it acceptable for a daycare centre/church/etc to implement prejudiced policies whether sexist/racist/etc due to the irrational feelings of its clients.

This contradicts most of what you've said before. You've been incredibly focused on trying to get a first-time visitor to use the service. Now you say that they pretty much never do anyways? Sounds like your waffling a bit here.

It does not contradict. You misunderstood the scenario. New people are new until they come several times and feel comfortable there. If they don't feel comfortable on the first week, you'll never see them again. If they don't feel comfortable on the forth week, they won't come there anymore. If they feel comfortable for four weeks in a row, they might start to check into the services like day care and making a commitment to the place. They are STILL new people.

Well, I guess we wouldn’t be good enough for you then and you wouldn’t drop you child off with us because sometimes women are alone with children at our center.

You aren't good enough by your own standards. I'm asking you if leaving a child alone in a room with an adult is a risk. If it is, it is a risk whether the adult is male or female. If it isn't, there's no reason for the extra restriction on male caretakers.

Personally, I wouldn't leave my children at your church, or even bring them there. I'm not going to take my children to a church that teaches them that men are all likely to attack them, but women are perfectly safe.

If there is one man and one woman and the woman is changing a diaper and another customer comes in the check in their child, it might have to be a man, thus we need two women there at all times.

:rolleyes:

No he’s not interchangeable. It would be two men and one woman and the woman wouldn’t be able to do anything for fear of leaving the desk… unfair work load. Thus he is not interchangeable by not bringing a desk worker with his work unit.

I see. That whole, "Let's enforce harmful stereotypes thing." Gotcha.

It’s a two woman job and 0, 1 or 2 men to help them. A women WOULD have to work with him or else the other worker unit wouldn’t even be able to go the bathroom herself for not leaving the desk…

Only because of your church's utterly idiotic rules.

If men are more of a threat or not I do not know. I suspect they are, but that just means I’ve been influence by our cultures expectations.

Yeah, that's all it means. To suggest that it is true would be utterly ridiculous and horribly insulting to all men.

I know fathers that can’t change their own children’s diapers, and you think I should let them watch other people’s children?

Wait, I thought they got training?

I also told you that volunteering was an expectation of the couple that uses the service, but you ignore that to make your points. We have a limited pool of workers to choose from. Single men do not, on their own, help us because they are not a complete worker unit. Sexist or not, it’s the truth.

They are not a "complete worker unit" because you have arbitrarily decided that they cannot be. It's as if I said, "This is a job for a white person. Black people don't help because they can't have the job. Racist or not, it's the truth."

Maybe you wouldn’t, but show a woman with a two week old baby in her arms two people to entrust her daughter to, one is a large burly calloused fingered man who is doing his very best to be polite and not clumsy, and the other person is another Mom with a baby of her own in the same room, who is she going to want to entrust her baby too and change her baby’s diaper if the need arises, the answer will be self evident 99 out of a 100 times. Pretend you wouldn’t assume the women over the man all you want. Wait until you have a two week old baby and then come back and tell me again.

Wow, way to completely bias the situation so that it is ridiculous. You've basically just characterized all men as clumsy and unable to take care of children. You've also talked about how the other person is a mom with a baby of her own, while ignoring the fact that any father working there is a father with a baby/child of his own.

And maybe that is all good and true, but it means that the woman is acting stupidly, and endangering her children by her innate trust in anything with a vagina.

False dichotomy. Insulting drivel and meaningless accusation.

It is exactly what they are doing. With these rules, your church is purposefully perpetuating harmful stereotypes about men. They are advocating the viewpoint that men are unfit to take care of children and the viewpoint that men are automatically more likely to abuse children than women. They are expressly advocating sexism.

Do you think it is morally wrong to tell a woman that she cannot be a mechanic simply because she has a vagina? Do you think it is morally wrong for a church to denigrate its female members? If not, why do you think it is morally good for a church to denigrate its male members?

Not a red herring. Simply put, is it acceptable for a daycare centre/church/etc to implement prejudiced policies whether sexist/racist/etc due to the irrational feelings of its clients.

It IS a red herring because I already said it IS a sexist scenario AND I said I agree with it, whereas I do not agree with the red herring examples nor gave any reason for a person to be inclined to think that I would favor those scenarios. Thus, the scenarios were ment to discredit me by association with racial bigotry.

Red Herring. We have Hispanics and African Americans and Asians already working in the center.

That is irrelevant. I specifically asked if it would be ok if you lived in an area that held a general prejudice towards Hispanics.

Your assertion is that, because men are irrationally stereotyped as abusive and unfit as childcare workers, your church should perpetuate that stereotype in order to make its members and visitors (who are apparently sexist) more comfortable.

By that exact same logic, if you lived in a place where most people were uncomfortable about Hispanics, your church should either keep Hispanic people out of the daycare or more strongly regulate their presence there. After all, you wouldn't want your racist members or racist visitors to be uncomfortable.

By that same logic, you should keep handicapped members either from working in the daycare or keep them from having full duties there. After all, many people would be irrationally uncomfortable handing their children to a person in a wheelchair or a person with a prosthetic arm, even if that person was perfectly capable of childcare.

It IS a red herring because I already said it IS a sexist scenario AND I said I agree with it, whereas I do not agree with the red herring examples nor gave any reason for a person to be inclined to think that I would favor those scenarios. Thus, the scenarios were ment to discredit me by association with racial bigotry.

Why is racial bigoty worse than gender bigotry?

It IS a red herring because I alread said it IS a sexist scenario AND I said I agree with it, whereas I do not agree with the red herring examples nor gave any reason for a person to be inclined to think that I would favor those scenarios. Thus, the scenarios were ment to discredit me by association with racial bigotry.

You said you agree with the sexism because it makes sexist visitors more comfortable.

By that same token, institutionalized racism would make racist visitors more comfortable.

Are you saying that sexism is more justified than racism? On what basis?

You aren't good enough by your own standards. I'm asking you if leaving a child alone in a room with an adult is a risk. If it is, it is a risk whether the adult is male or female. If it isn't, there's no reason for the extra restriction on male caretakers.

Personally, I wouldn't leave my children at your church, or even bring them there. I'm not going to take my children to a church that teaches them that men are all likely to attack them, but women are perfectly safe.

Oh my goodness. Nice :rolleyes:

But you know what, we DO teach children to be safe and on the lookout for their own safety and not to talk to strangers unless they are with their parents etc., etc., etc. You want to pretend like I’m some monster, fine, whatever. The truth is you probably wouldn’t go to our church for far more reasons than just that one. And that’s a shame, because you’d probably meet a lot of people that you would like and would like you as well.


I see. That whole, "Let's enforce harmful stereotypes thing." Gotcha.

How is it a stereotype that we create? It is not.


Only because of your church's utterly idiotic rules.

We’ve already established that you’ve decided not to go there, nice of you to call us idiotic all the same.


Yeah, that's all it means. To suggest that it is true would be utterly ridiculous and horribly insulting to all men.

Then argue with the people in this very thread that have said that men ARE more of a danger and they statistically would be shown to be IF we put them in more positions with small children. Why are you arguing it at me?


Wait, I thought they got training?

They do get training, but we can’t train people to be good at something, only to train them to know how to do something.


They are not a "complete worker unit" because you have arbitrarily decided that they cannot be. It's as if I said, "This is a job for a white person. Black people don't help because they can't have the job. Racist or not, it's the truth."

Nope. Its like the gym locker room worker. Women in the women’s locker room, men in the men’s locker room. You can make false allegations all day long can’t you?


Wow, way to completely bias the situation so that it is ridiculous. You've basically just characterized all men as clumsy and unable to take care of children. You've also talked about how the other person is a mom with a baby of her own, while ignoring the fact that any father working there is a father with a baby/child of his own.

The Mom with a baby of her own relates by common experience of recent birthing (for example) to the other Mom of common experience. As to bias the situation it is EXACTLY what it looks like to the mom bringing the baby to the center. Ask them yourself. Your denial of how people feel is the failure of your logic and why your position is in error.


And maybe that is all good and true, but it means that the woman is acting stupidly, and endangering her children by her innate trust in anything with a vagina.

According to you then, no mother should ever endanger her children by allowing anyone to ever care for them, as someone else is always a possible threat, to equal degrees no mater what, or else she’s acting stupidly, according to you. I disagree.


It is exactly what they are doing. With these rules, your church is purposefully perpetuating harmful stereotypes about men. They are advocating the viewpoint that men are unfit to take care of children and the viewpoint that men are automatically more likely to abuse children than women. They are expressly advocating sexism.

We ARE resolving the issue with a sexist answer. The new mothers who use the baby care center also regularly work in the baby care center, and their husbands can help them if the woman wants them too and they think they will be helpful to them (As a matter of fact and now that I think of it: some women don't even want their own husbands to help them, that is MUCH more common than men being denied who want to work there).

The men without wives (of which there are none right now but there has been some in the past but the one I'm thinking of, his kids are too old now anyway) but he was NOT asked to work in the baby-care center because he couldn’t do all of the work there and would make the other mom on duty with him make up the difference. Nobody protested when the decision was made that he could volunteer somewhere else and we woudl count it all the same.


Do you think it is morally wrong to tell a woman that she cannot be a mechanic simply because she has a vagina? Do you think it is morally wrong for a church to denigrate its female members? If not, why do you think it is morally good for a church to denigrate its male members?

You like those false dichotomy today don’t you?

A woman can work as a mechanic, in fact, she should strive to be president or ceo of the car company for that matter.

A church should not denigrate any of it’s members, male or female.

It IS ethically right to ask the man to work with older children if he wants to volunteer his time because he uses the baby-care center, we can easily put him to good work somewhere else, but we will STILL not have him work alone with children, nobody works entirely alone with children, except out of dire emergency have I ever seen us do it.

You said you agree with the sexism because it makes sexist visitors more comfortable.

By that same token, institutionalized racism would make racist visitors more comfortable.

Are you saying that sexism is more justified than racism? On what basis?

Good for you, you want to do nothing but call me a bigot and pretend that I'm oppressing MEN. Yup, call me guilty.

I'm not oppressing women, I'm not oppressing minority groups, I'm not oppressing the men either, I'm only denying them the task of watching the baby-care center without their wife. They can work with older kids if they want or find a single mother that wants to work with him.

That's it, I confess, I'm guilty of oppressing single men with, infants to toddlers and pre-schoolers, who insist they should be allowed to change other people's baby's diapers. Find them and let them sue us I guess, I think we will win and we will be able to put them to work with children in a different age group and different room etc.

Why is racial bigoty worse than gender bigotry?

Gender anti-bigotry says I have to hire the male worker that applies to work in the women’s locker room. You can figure out the difference between racial bigotry and gender bigotry from that starting position.

Oh my goodness. Nice :rolleyes:

But you know what, we DO teach children to be safe and on the lookout for their own safety and not to talk to strangers unless they are with their parents etc., etc., etc.

And, by your policies, you make it clear that strange women are safer than strange men (although there is no reason to believe this is true.)

You want to pretend like I’m some monster, fine, whatever. The truth is you probably wouldn’t go to our church for far more reasons than just that one. And that’s a shame, because you’d probably meet a lot of people that you would like and would like you as well.

I see no reason to go to a church whose policies I disagree with. Why would I advocate a church that is, in my mind, flying in the face of Christ's teachings?

How is it a stereotype that we create? It is not.

I didn't say you create it. You are, however, perpetuating it. You are advocating it and pandering to it.

We’ve already established that you’ve decided not to go there, nice of you to call us idiotic all the same.

I said the rules were idiotic. Did I call you, personally, idiotic? If I did, please point out where.

Then argue with the people in this very thread that have said that men ARE more of a danger and they statistically would be shown to be IF we put them in more positions with small children. Why are you arguing it at me?

I've already pointed out my opinion of that issue - that men who choose to go into a childcare profession (which actually wouldn't really apply here, now would it? - and that is what the statistics were for) may be more prone to being abusive. Of course, there is no evidence that men, in general, are more likely to be abusive. This suggests that more abusive men are drawn into the childcare profession. Of course, that fact is probably caused by things like the stereotypes your church is now perpetuating - which keep men who have nothing but love for children out of those professions. If we tell men that they cannot be child caretakers, very few are going to go into those positions. Of those that do, it makes sense that more of them would have alterior motives.

They do get training, but we can’t train people to be good at something, only to train them to know how to do something.

So now you are saying that women are innately better at childcare?

Nope. Its like the gym locker room worker. Women in the women’s locker room, men in the men’s locker room. You can make false allegations all day long can’t you?

Actually, it isn't anything at all like that. In that case, the locker rooms and the employees working in them are segregated by sex. If you were going to make an accurate comparison to a locker room, you would have to mandate that only women handle female children and only men handle male children.

The Mom with a baby of her own relates by common experience of recent birthing (for example) to the other Mom of common experience.

But doesn't relate to a father in the common experience of parenting, apparently. Do these women all hate their husbands and like to pretend that they are not parents, too?

As to bias the situation it is EXACTLY what it looks like to the mom bringing the baby to the center. Ask them yourself. Your denial of how people feel is the failure of your logic and why your position is in error.

You're telling me that all the women who come to your church would view any man, even a businessman competently handling a child, as a lumbering, burly, calloused, clumsy person? Where the hell do you live that people are completely blind to reality?

According to you then, no mother should ever endanger her children by allowing anyone to ever care for them, as someone else is always a possible threat, to equal degrees no mater what, or else she’s acting stupidly, according to you. I disagree.

i didn't say that everyone is a threat to equal degrees. But whether or not a given individual is more of a threat than another depends on that individual, not on what genitalia they have. If a woman has an innate trust to give her children over to anyone with a vagina, she is endangering her child, by not taking the time to assess that person individually.

We ARE resolving the issue with a sexist answer.

You aren't resolving the issue at all. You are perpetuating the stereotype and doing nothing at all to alleviate it.

You like those false dichotomy today don’t you?

No, not at all. Luckily, I have yet to use one.

A woman can work as a mechanic, in fact, she should strive to be president or ceo of the car company for that matter.

But a man couldn't possibly do "women's work", eh?

A church should not denigrate any of it’s members, male or female.

And yet you advocate the denigration of your male members. Or do you not think it denigrates someone to assume they are harmful to children or incapable of childcare, even though they are parents themselves?

It IS ethically right to ask the man to work with older children if he wants to volunteer his time because he uses the baby-care center, we can easily put him to good work somewhere else, but we will STILL not have him work alone with children, nobody works entirely alone with children, except out of dire emergency have I ever seen us do it.

Now you are changing your story again. Earlier, you told me women close the door any time a child is noisy and are in the room alone. Now you tell me that nobody is alone with children except out of a dire emergency.

Meanwhile, how is it ethically right to assume that a man, just because he has a penis, is not well-suited to work with young children?

That is irrelevant. I specifically asked if it would be ok if you lived in an area that held a general prejudice towards Hispanics.

Your assertion is that, because men are irrationally stereotyped as abusive and unfit as childcare workers, your church should perpetuate that stereotype in order to make its members and visitors (who are apparently sexist) more comfortable.

By that exact same logic, if you lived in a place where most people were uncomfortable about Hispanics, your church should either keep Hispanic people out of the daycare or more strongly regulate their presence there. After all, you wouldn't want your racist members or racist visitors to be uncomfortable.

By that same logic, you should keep handicapped members either from working in the daycare or keep them from having full duties there. After all, many people would be irrationally uncomfortable handing their children to a person in a wheelchair or a person with a prosthetic arm, even if that person was perfectly capable of childcare.


Nope, you simply made a red herring example, a strawman argument, to change the topic from gender discrimination to racial discrimination. But the topic here is gender discrimination, NOT racial discrimination.

You go and hire men to work in your women's locker room if you want, but you can't force me to hire men for our women's locker room.

You know what else, I'm trying to think if I recall ever seeing a male maternity ward pre-natal nurse... (the nurse that stays with one mother and her delivery from beginning to end)

OR: what about those women only work out centers. They don't hire male workers for those places, why don't you go cry sexism there? But it's a part of their appeal isn't it, to be women workers to make women comfortable, but you know what, that's exactly what we are doing too.

You go and hire men to work in your women's locker room if you want, but you can't force me to hire men for our women's locker room.


You've used this analogy several times now, and it hasn't really made sense yet. In what way is a childcare facility analogous to a women's locker room? Do you only care for female children? Are there regularly naked women wandering around the childcare?

Hey there all, I am actually a guy who works in a direct childcare setting.

At the moment I'm just a student (as if being a student is hard enough) and at my recent placement I came across my first paranoid staff member who instantly assumed that I was untrustworthy because I was male. To be fair up until that point I had been treated fairly and with respect.

I'm not a paedofile, I despise anyone who would ever hurt a child, but I am sick of the stigma. I read a post here about "Trail-blazers" of guys going into childcare and whoever posted that is right, it's damn hard for a guy to get into the childcare business simply because of the paranoia of retarded people such as those who run the featured website.

Good for you, you want to do nothing but call me a bigot and pretend that I'm oppressing MEN. Yup, call me guilty.

Not you specifically, your church. And your church is acting in a bigotted manner. You've admitted this yourself.

I'm not oppressing women, I'm not oppressing minority groups, I'm not oppressing the men either, I'm only denying them the task of watching the baby-care center without their wife.

Would it be oppressing women to say that they cannot, for instance, be church deacons?

The only reason you have provided for keeping men out of this position is, "Our parishioners and visitors are sexist, and we have to pander to that." You have yet to provide a single objective reason for keeping men out of that job. In other words, you are advocating clear bigotry.

That's it, I confess, I'm guilty of oppressing single men with, infants to toddlers and pre-schoolers, who insist they should be allowed to change other people's baby's diapers. Find them and let them sue us I guess, I think we will win and we will be able to put them to work with children in a different age group and different room etc.

You can't be sued for this. You're a church. You could only have female members if you so chose.

But to try and pretend that it isn't bigotry is dishonest.

Nope, you simply made a red herring example, a strawman argument, to change the topic from gender discrimination to racial discrimination. But the topic here is gender discrimination, NOT racial discrimination.

Bigotry is bigotry. If you can come up with a single reason that this is more justified than keeping a distrusted race out of the position, I'd like to hear it.

You go and hire men to work in your women's locker room if you want, but you can't force me to hire men for our women's locker room.

I've already shown how this is a false analogy. Unless every child in the daycare is female, this is nothing at all like a women's locker room.

You know what else, I'm trying to think if I recall ever seeing a male maternity ward pre-natal nurse... (the nurse that stays with one mother and her delivery from beging to end)

I don't know about that specific type of nurse, but I have seen quite a few male nurses, even working for gyno's. In fact, I've seen male gyno's.

Of course, this is still irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is childcare, not childbirth or locker rooms.

I see no reason to go to a church whose policies I disagree with. Why would I advocate a church that is, in my mind, flying in the face of Christ's teachings?

Show me the quote that says Jesus taught I should trust men to change my babies diaper.


I said the rules were idiotic. Did I call you, personally, idiotic? If I did, please point out where.

Its our church, it's our rules, you called us idiotic.

So now you are saying that women are innately better at childcare?

Nope, I didn't say that. Nice baiting though on your part.

Actually, it isn't anything at all like that. In that case, the locker rooms and the employees working in them are segregated by sex. If you were going to make an accurate comparison to a locker room, you would have to mandate that only women handle female children and only men handle male children.

I'm calling infants female even when they are boys. For the SAME reason a boy can go with his mother into a public women's bathroom with her if he isn't old enough to go into the boys bathroom by himself.


But doesn't relate to a father in the common experience of parenting, apparently. Do these women all hate their husbands and like to pretend that they are not parents, too?

False dichotomy again. Please, please at least TRY to make correlation that do not require us to believe that we either do what you say or we agree with killing baby kittens.

These women know their husbands, YOU judge them from afar all you want. Not very Christian of you though. I've seen you post an awful lot of horror stories about women who are oppressed by men and now you simply accuse these men of oppressing their husbands. :headbang:

You're telling me that all the women who come to your church would view any man, even a businessman competently handling a child, as a lumbering, burly, calloused, clumsy person? Where the hell do you live that people are completely blind to reality?

Okay fine, your endless insults are getting to be too much. It's utterly ridiculous, you go right ahead and believe whatever the heck you want, even if that mean you think everyone I know is completely blind to reality. My impression of you has been dealt quite a blow by this endless insulting manner of discourse you've taken up I'll tell you that.


I've already shown how this is a false analogy. Unless every child in the daycare is female, this is nothing at all like a women's locker room.


You did NOT show how it is a fasle analogy. If it is false, why are infant and toddler boys allowed in the womens locker room? Toddlers are considered sexless until they come of age to go to the bathroom by themselves.

*deleted further quotes hereafter*

I'm calling infants female even when they are boys. For the SAME reason a boy can go with his mother into a public women's bathroom with her if he isn't old enough to go into the boys bathroom by himself.


...all infants are female, even the 50% of them who aren't? Huh?

And I hate to break it to you, but infant girls can also go into men's bathrooms with their fathers. Most men's restrooms constructed nowadays contain changing tables, just as women's restrooms do. You seem to believe that taking care of infants is solely a mother's responsibility, and I'm really not sure how you justify that.


ETA: I missed this on the first reading - Toddlers are considered sexless until they come of age to go to the bathroom by themselves.


How on earth are "female" and "sexless" synonymous? One who is sexless would logically seem to be equally not-male and not-female.

I'm calling infants female even when they are boys.

Really? Because I thought that you believed that toddlers were considered sexless until they come of age to go to the bathroom by themselves.

Toddlers are considered sexless until they come of age to go to the bathroom by themselves.

Oh, ok. Well, I think that's a pretty stupid way of looking at things. Just because it doesn't matter what toilet or changing room a child goes into doesn't mean they're without gender. What, we only define sex by what toilet you can go to?

...all infants are female, even the 50% of them who aren't? Huh?

And I hate to break it to you, but infant girls can also go into men's bathrooms with their fathers. Most men's restrooms constructed nowadays contain changing tables, just as women's restrooms do. You seem to believe that taking care of infants is solely a mother's responsibility, and I'm really not sure how you justify that.


ETA: I missed this on the first reading -

How on earth are "female" and "sexless" synonymous? One who is sexless would logically seem to be equally not-male and not-female.
.same kind of post..


I was trying to say 'sexless' because I wasn't trying to say females are less than men. Infants and toddler are like females in the day care center. Its more like a locker room for women than it is for men, especially when you consider things like changing diapers, breastfeeding mothers, toddlers needing to use the bathroom with the door open (too scared to shut it etc.,) and all the things that go on in a baby-care center. Maybe YOU think that’s going to be the equivalent of a man's locker room but I don't, I think it's the equivalent of making it more like a woman’s locker room, with privacy areas and bathrooms and changing tables and breastfeeding rocking chairs etc.

Gender anti-bigotry says I have to hire the male worker that applies to work in the women’s locker room. You can figure out the difference between racial bigotry and gender bigotry from that starting position.

No, gender anti-bigotry says that you have to treat the genders equally. Namely that if you have a rule that men can't work in the women's locker room then you should gave a rule that women can't work in the men's.

Having different rules for the genders is sexism, and you justify it by saying it makes the clients more comfortable. You accept bigotry on the grounds that your clients prefer the bigoted arrangements. If they preferred arrangements on a different sort of bigotry (for example they felt more comfortable with whites handling their children) then why would you not alter the arrangements for this sort of bigotry.

In short do you feel that it is right for your church to perpetuate bigotry and thereby approve of it.

No, gender anti-bigotry says that you have to treat the genders equally. Namely that if you have a rule that men can't work in the women's locker room then you should gave a rule that women can't work in the men's.
Having different rules for the genders is sexism, and you justify it by saying it makes the clients more comfortable. You accept bigotry on the grounds that your clients prefer the bigoted arrangements. If they preferred arrangements on a different sort of bigotry (for example they felt more comfortable with whites handling their children) then why would you not alter the arrangements for this sort of bigotry.

In short do you feel that it is right for your church to perpetuate bigotry and thereby approve of it.

*bolded for point*
Men don't have to have a men’s only baby care center. Men don't use them nearly as much and the men that do need a baby care center can use the women's baby care center. I've never met a man that HAD to come into the center. I've seen lots of women that HAD to breastfeed their babies come in there... I'm arguing that I am treating the genders equally. The women's locker room (in this case the baby care center) is bigger because it needs to be bigger to serve the purpose. The men’s baby care center locker room hasn't been built yet because there hasn't been anyone that needed one yet (and realistically likely never will be needed).

I was trying to say 'sexless' because I wasn't trying to say females are less than men. Infants and toddler are like females in the day care center. Its more like a locker room for women than it is for men, especially when you consider things like changing diapers, breastfeeding mothers, toddlers needing to use the bathroom with the door open (too scared to shut it etc.,) and all the things that go on in a baby-care center. Maybe YOU think that’s going to be the equivalent of a man's locker room but I don't, I think it's the equivalent of making it more like a woman’s locker room, with privacy areas and bathrooms and changing tables and breastfeeding rocking chairs etc.

I don't see a childcare as being analogous to anyone's locker room. As I said, the locker room analogy makes no discernible sense to me. I'm fairly convinced that locker rooms for both genders contain "privacy areas and bathrooms," and I've never seen a locker room for either gender that contains "changing tables and breastfeeding rocking chairs," although bathrooms for both genders contain the former. You seem to be stating that changing diapers, feeding babies, and helping toddlers use the toilet are "female" activities, and you've offered no justification for this. Men can quite obviously change diapers, feed babies, and help toddlers use the toilet.

I don't see a childcare as being analogous to anyone's locker room. As I said, the locker room analogy makes no discernible sense to me. I'm fairly convinced that locker rooms for both genders contain "privacy areas and bathrooms," and I've never seen a locker room for either gender that contains "changing tables and breastfeeding rocking chairs," although bathrooms for both genders contain the former. You seem to be stating that changing diapers, feeding babies, and helping toddlers use the toilet are "female" activities, and you've offered no justification for this. Men can quite obviously change diapers, feed babies, and help toddlers use the toilet.

Men cannot NOT feed babies. But you met bottle feeding I'm sure. Breastfeeding involves women, some women don't like men in the room when they do it. You figure out how it's not like a locker room if a women feels she’s needs to be able to undress in it a little. Other women feel perfectly fine with people all around them, we try to accommodate both types and everyone inbetween.

FYI: we have a "toddlers" restroom in it, adults of neither sex are allowed to use it. We have a workers restroom, toddlers are not allwed to be in there. The privacy areas are still open to the other adult workers but not the adult customer checking in their child at the counter area.

*bolded for point*
Men don't have to have a men’s only baby care center. Men don't use them nearly as much and the men that do need a baby care center can use the women's baby care center. I've never met a man that HAD to come into the center. I've seen lots of women that HAD to breastfeed their babies come in there... I'm arguing that I am treating the genders equally. The women's locker room (in this case the baby care center) is bigger because it needs to be bigger to serve the purpose. The men’s baby care center locker room hasn't been built yet because there hasn't been anyone that needed one yet (and realistically likely never will be needed).

So the day-care centre is a women's locker room? But surely that'd mean men weren't allowed in, except they are under restricted circumstances, meaning the analogy doesn't work.

At the end of the day you are trying to justify bigotry, however you try to do it that is what you are trying to do. So a simple yes or no question. You've given numerous examples of how men and women are treated differently regarded being left alone with children etc (unless of course you can show that all men are inherently worse than all women at childcare)

Is bigotry acceptable?

Breastfeeding involves women, some women don't like men in the room when they do it.

Quite what this has to do with the difference between single and married men in a daycare centre is lost on me, I'm afraid.

Men cannot NOT feed babies. But you met bottle feeding I'm sure. Breastfeeding involves women, some women don't like men in the room when they do it. You figure out how it's not like a locker room if a women feels she’s needs to be able to undress in it a little. Other women feel perfectly fine with people all around them, we try to accommodate both types and everyone inbetween.

FYI: we have a "toddlers" restroom in it, adults of neither sex are allowed to use it. We have a workers restroom, toddlers are not allwed to be in there. The privacy areas are still open to the other adult workers but not the adult customer checking in their child chech in counter area.

Men certainly can feed babies, and frequently do. I've yet to meet a mother of an infant who exclusively breastfeeds - many women exclusively use breast milk, but you'd have to be both masochistic and selfish to deny your partner the opportunity ever to feed your child. I would also presume that you allow even non-lactating women to work in your daycare, so a man's inability to breastfeed hardly seems remotely relevant.

Further, if some women don't like men in the room while they're breastfeeding, how on earth do you justify allowing husbands in? Does being married make them cease to be male?

So the day-care centre is a women's locker room? But surely that'd mean men weren't allowed in, except they are under restricted circumstances, meaning the analogy doesn't work.

But men ARE allowed, in a very restricted manner, to work and enter a womans locker room at approved periods (to clean it when it's not being used, for example, and the men in the day care frequently do have to leave this room or that room for a few minutes here and there as various things need to take place that men are not welcome to attend).

At the end of the day you are trying to justify bigotry, however you try to do it that is what you are trying to do. So a simple yes or no question. You've given numerous examples of how men and women are treated differently regarded being left alone with children etc (unless of course you can show that all men are inherently worse than all women at childcare)

Is bigotry acceptable?


I'm not trying to justify sex based bigotry in the baby care center, I AM justifying sex based bigotry by need of the circumstances and the job requirements of the baby care center.

Quite what this has to do with the difference between single and married men in a daycare centre is lost on me, I'm afraid.

The single man is a half-worker in that environment, he can't do every job. A single man has no one to help so he doesn't work there. The married man helps his wife when she works there, he doesn't work there without her.

Being all of five years old, I've always been very good with kids. Now, since my wife makes terrific money, I don't have to work, so I stay home with my children. I've kept other people's kids, and aside from a few bumps and the occasional tear, because I don't bullshit, most come out of it fairly well off. :)

However, being a looming wierdo who is not a child molestor does not mean I would allow a strange man from a professional service to keep my children. It just wouldn't sit right with me, though neither would a strange woman, for that matter.

I'm not trying to justify sex based bigotry in the baby care center, I AM justifying sex based bigotry by need of the circumstances and the job requirements of the baby care center.

So if it was proven that, for example, white people were more likely to abuse children, or if a group of women said they were uncomfortable breast-feeding around whites, you'd happily endorse a "No Whites" policy?

The single man is a half-worker in that environment, he can't do every job. A single man has no one to help so he doesn't work there. The married man helps his wife when she works there, he doesn't work there without her.

Nothing to do with their presence during breast-feeding, I'm afraid.

Men certainly can feed babies, and frequently do. I've yet to meet a mother of an infant who exclusively breastfeeds - many women exclusively use breast milk, but you'd have to be both masochistic and selfish to deny your partner the opportunity ever to feed your child. I would also presume that you allow even non-lactating women to work in your daycare, so a man's inability to breastfeed hardly seems remotely relevant.

Further, if some women don't like men in the room while they're breastfeeding, how on earth do you justify allowing husbands in? Does being married make them cease to be male?

There are multiple rooms.

As to breastfeeding, you don't have to be working there to breastfeed your child there. If your child is there, and during the service you need to go feed them and then go back to Sunday school later, or whatever, many of the mothers do that. That's not regulated to working there, providing a place for the customer to come and do it is one of the services met by having a baby care center.

Some women don’t like the men in the room when they do it and the men leave the room until they are done and the women workers watch the other children in the room while the men can’t be in there. Some days the infant room is never even enterable by the male workers as one mother after another comes in to feed… Other days four will come at once and no one else comes in to feed all day, you never can tell. But when they are there the men are booted out and can’t work that part of the job until they are done and they work in the toddler or preschooler room while they are banned from the infant room.

So if it was proven that, for example, white people were more likely to abuse children, or if a group of women said they were uncomfortable breast-feeding around whites, you'd happily endorse a "No Whites" policy?

You think it's okay to insist that women have to breastfeed in the presence of men they don't know because some women are comfortable doing that, they learn to do it or they can go to a different church if they don't like it?

Riiiiight. Good for you. I disagree.

Being all of five years old, I've always been very good with kids. Now, since my wife makes terrific money, I don't have to work, so I stay home with my children. I've kept other people's kids, and aside from a few bumps and the occasional tear, because I don't bullshit, most come out of it fairly well off. :)

However, being a looming wierdo who is not a child molestor does not mean I would allow a strange man from a professional service to keep my children. It just wouldn't sit right with me, though neither would a strange woman, for that matter.

Thank you. I thought I was going to die of lonliness around here. ;) Except that I have to keep working outside of the home I watch the three kids a majority of the time... 6 mos, through 11 years. How old are yours?

You think it's okay to insist that women have to breastfeed in the presence of men they don't know because some women are comfortable doing that, they learn to do it or they can go to a different church if they don't like it?

Riiiiight. Good for you. I disagree.

What if a woman is not comfortable around other women?

If breast feeding is the only reason for the policy then why are men treated differently in unrelated parts of the centre.

What if a woman is not comfortable around other women?

We haven't had anyone say that. If they exists, which you are right there surely must be some women that want to do it in complete privacy, they go where they want without talking about it I suppose, being private they probably don't like talking about it, shy and all that. Perhaps at home? Car? Restroom? Probably they take their child home to do it I suppose.

If breast feeding is the only reason for the policy then why are men treated differently in unrelated parts of the centre.

Because breastfeeding can take place in any of the rooms, toddlers and infants room mostly though, I admit that I haven't seen a woman ask to be allowed into the pre-schoolers room to do it yet but we do have a rocking chair in there if anyone should ever ask...

Men work as helpers wherever they can, sometimes they aren't very helpful though by default with the place being busy with visiting moms breastfeeding and booting them out of a couple of rooms at the same time.

We haven't had anyone say that. If they exists, which you are right there surely must be some women that want to do it in complete privacy, they go where they want without talking about it I suppose, being private they probably don't like talking about it, shy and all that. Perhaps at home? Car? Restroom? Probably they take their child home to do it I suppose.
So if a woman objects to a man being present the man leaves, but if she objects to a woman being present then she leaves. It's okay to object to a man being there, but not okay to object to a woman being there.



Because breastfeeding can take place in any of the rooms, toddlers and infants room mostly though, I admit that I haven't seen a woman ask to be allowed into the pre-schoolers room to do it yet but we do have a rocking chair in there if anyone should ever ask...
Surely it'd make much more sense just to have a room for breastfeeding. Also that doesn't affect the fact that men are still treated with less trust when breastfeeding is not an issue.

Maybe you wouldn’t, but show a woman with a two week old baby in her arms two people to entrust her daughter to, one is a large burly calloused fingered man who is doing his very best to be polite and not clumsy, and the other person is another Mom with a baby of her own in the same room, who is she going to want to entrust her baby too and change her baby’s diaper if the need arises, the answer will be self evident 99 out of a 100 times. Pretend you wouldn’t assume the women over the man all you want. Wait until you have a two week old baby and then come back and tell me again.

Okay, I could tolerate your sexism until I got to this point. Now you're just being an insensitive, stereotyping fucktard with little knowledge or understanding of men.

First of all, show me a clumsy man who wishes to work with children. In return, I'll show you several clumsy women who do.

Next, you mention that parents would be uncomfortable leaving their kid with a calloused and clumsy man... what about the 20-something man who actually has kids of his own and knows what he's doing? The gay man who is a surrogate father and looks after his own kid? The trained childcare worker who is offering his expertise? You're denying these men the opportunity to provide a service because you're too much of a coward to actually do what's right.

And, for the love of FSM, will you stop bringing up changing nappies. It's irrelevant to state that men can't change babies until you can show us why women can (which you haven't).

But heck, don't let logic stop you from living your sexist little life. You can tell us all your sexist opinions from the kitchen, where you clearly belong.*

















*Please note I am not a chauvinist, but one offensive sexist remark deserves another.

So if a woman objects to a man being present the man leaves, but if she objects to a woman being present then she leaves. It's okay to object to a man being there, but not okay to object to a woman being there.

Correct, what are we supposed to do? Take the infants out of their cribs and carry them into the check in counter while she needs total privacy and doesn't want to be disturbed? No, that would be ridiculous.

There are usually 2-7 infants in there on any given Sunday, less during the first service... And the same for the toddler room, except theres usually even more toddlers than infants, would the mother even 'think' of asking everyone to leave the room? You question didn't make much sense to me because I don't see how someone could ask for everyone else to leave, it's possible that there will be more than one breastefeeding women at a time in there.

Surely it'd make much more sense just to have a room for breastfeeding. Also that doesn't affect the fact that men are still treated with less trust when breastfeeding is not an issue.

We have two regularly used breastfeeding rooms, we keep the toddlers and infants in them (like I said earlier, I've never seen anyone use the pre-schooler room for breastfeeding, but we do borrow that rocking chair from time to time when it's really busy with over 6 mothers feeding at once. Why should we build yet another room?

Okay, I could tolerate your sexism until I got to this point. Now you're just being an insensitive, stereotyping fucktard with little knowledge or understanding of men.

First of all, show me a clumsy man who wishes to work with children. In return, I'll show you several clumsy women who do.

Next, you mention that parents would be uncomfortable leaving their kid with a calloused and clumsy man... what about the 20-something man who actually has kids of his own and knows what he's doing? The gay man who is a surrogate father and looks after his own kid? The trained childcare worker who is offering his expertise? You're denying these men the opportunity to provide a service because you're too much of a coward to actually do what's right.

And, for the love of FSM, will you stop bringing up changing nappies. It's irrelevant to state that men can't change babies until you can show us why women can (which you haven't).

But heck, don't let logic stop you from living your sexist little life. You can tell us all your sexist opinions from the kitchen, where you clearly belong.*

















*Please note I am not a chauvinist, but one offensive sexist remark deserves another.

You know, you are the second person that got mad at me for essentially describing myself and my wife doing our turn in the day care center. And when I said calloused, I said calloused hands, you know, from working.

And the baby diapers thing/topic isn't because the men can't do it, it's because the mothers of the babies sometimes don't like the idea of the men changing their babies diapers. The rule is not that they can't do it, but that more than one adult is in the room while diapers are being changed. It's the parents hang-up not he sex of the diaper changer making it so that he is not able to do it.

You think it's okay to insist that women have to breastfeed in the presence of men they don't know because some women are comfortable doing that, they learn to do it or they can go to a different church if they don't like it?

Riiiiight. Good for you. I disagree.

Riiiiight. Good for you! I'd like you to address my point now :)

Riiiiight. Good for you! I'd like you to address my point now :)

I'm not going to address your point. Racial bigotry is not an analogy of gender restrictions in a baby-care center any more than gender restrictions in a locker room, a woman's exclussive gym, or a womens health club or spa are bigoted restrictions against men either.

I'm not going to address your point. Racial bigotry is not an analogy of gender restrictions in a baby-care center any more than gender restrictions in a locker room, a woman's exclussive gym, or a womens health club or spa are bigoted restrictions against men either.

Why? If the only thing stopping a man going into a room is that a woman feels uncomfortable, why shouldn't the same apply to someone of a certain race?

Show me the quote that says Jesus taught I should trust men to change my babies diaper.

Do you think Jesus would assume that all men are child molestors incapable of childcare without a woman looking over his shoulder? Do you think Jesus would denigrate men in that manner?

Show me where Jesus advocated actions that perpetuate harmful stereotypes? Do you not think that such actions would be counter to a message of love?

Its our church, it's our rules, you called us idiotic.

I called the rules idiotic. I've seen some fairly intelligent people make some pretty idiotic decisions. And I've met quite a few people who are bigotted, but still intelligent.

Nope, I didn't say that. Nice baiting though on your part.

Yes, you did. If men should not be allowed because they aren't capable of the work, you've made a statement that men are innately less able to take on these tasks than women. Otherwise, your "we can't train them to be good at it," statement is entirely out of place. If you can't train someone to be good at it, then both men and women would receive the training to know how to do it, and some of them would be good at it and some of them would not.

I'm calling infants female even when they are boys.

Yeah, that makes sense.

For the SAME reason a boy can go with his mother into a public women's bathroom with her if he isn't old enough to go into the boys bathroom by himself.

And a father can take his daughter to the bathroom in public. Some men's bathrooms accomodate this, including having changing tables for infants. Other areas include family bathrooms in which any adult can enter with a young child of either sex.

False dichotomy again. Please, please at least TRY to make correlation that do not require us to believe that we either do what you say or we agree with killing baby kittens.

Where did I mention baby kittens? You wish to try and disguise the policy and claim that it is not bigotted. I'm sorry if it bothers you to have the bigotry pointed out.

These women know their husbands, YOU judge them from afar all you want.

I'm not judging them. I'm asking a question. I can't imagine why someone would not be able to relate to a fellow parent, regardless of what genitalia they have. The only way a woman could ignore that a father is a parent as well is to make a false assumption that a man does not share in the parenting experience. If that is not the case, then it would seem that you have been mischaracterizing the women you know.

Not very Christian of you though.

It isn't Christian of me to expect a church to act in a Christian manner? Ok, if you say so.

I've seen you post an awful lot of horror stories about women who are oppressed by men and now you simply accuse these men of oppressing their husbands. :headbang:

*Shock and awe* Someone who is willing to stand up for the rights of women and ensure that they are not unreasonably and unfairly stereotyped and treated poorly actually is willing to do the same for men?!?!?! How can that be!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Is it wrong to stand up for all people in this situation, rather than choosing a set of genitalia and only caring about people who have them?

Okay fine, your endless insults are getting to be too much.

That's laughable. You are the one insulting people here. You are supporting the idea that all men are either fumbling idiots when it comes to child care or are going to abuse any children in their care. You are telling me that women see any man, no matter how competent, as a fumbling idiot who can't figure out how to take care of a child.

I'm not making any insults here - you are. I'm just trying to determine if you actually mean them.

It's utterly ridiculous, you go right ahead and believe whatever the heck you want, even if that mean you think everyone I know is completely blind to reality.

I never said I think everyone you know is completely blind to reality. But you did tell me that the women who come into the daycare center are blind to reality, by telling me that they see all men as burly, clumsy, and incompetent. I, for one, know that all men do not meet these descriptions, and that many men are quite good with children. Thus, the only way someone would believe that is to be blind to reality.

My impression of you has been dealt quite a blow by this endless insulting manner of discourse you've taken up I'll tell you that.

That's nice. You've imagined that I've come up with insults that were your own writings, and you apparently have a bad impression of me because I don't think all men are burly, clumsy, and incompetent when it comes to childcare and I don't think all men are going to abuse a child at the first chance they get. If that gives you a bad impression, then have one all you want.

You did NOT show how it is a fasle analogy.

Yes, I did.

If it is false, why are infant and toddler boys allowed in the womens locker room?

Because our society sees childcare as women's work, and the woman can't possibly leave her son alone.

Of course, our society is increasingly becoming aware that fathers are parents too, and often have their children, male or female, with them. This is the reason that many places have begun instituting family facilities in which any adult can bring a young child with them.

Toddlers are considered sexless until they come of age to go to the bathroom by themselves.

No, they aren't. If they were, you'd have no problem with a 2-year old girl walking into a men's restroom. Toddlers are not considered sexless, we simply realize that they cannot be left alone. In times past, this often meant that the woman (who was supposed to be the sole person taking care of the child) had to bring a young male child with her to the bathroom. This was never accepted with men and young female children for two reasons - one is that men's bathrooms are less private. The other is the unreasonable stereotype that men should not take care of their children.

Of course, as I pointed out, that stereotype is fading. Family bathrooms can be found in all sorts of places so that a man who is with his young daughter does not have to try and find a random woman to take her to the bathroom.


I'm not trying to justify sex based bigotry in the baby care center, I AM justifying sex based bigotry by need of the circumstances and the job requirements of the baby care center.

What job requirements is a man innately incapable of carrying out?

The single man is a half-worker in that environment, he can't do every job.

You mean you won't let him do every job. He is capable of doing everything that needs to be done. Your church has simply decided that he cannot.

As to breastfeeding, you don't have to be working there to breastfeed your child there. If your child is there, and during the service you need to go feed them and then go back to Sunday school later, or whatever, many of the mothers do that. That's not regulated to working there, providing a place for the customer to come and do it is one of the services met by having a baby care center.

Some women don’t like the men in the room when they do it and the men leave the room until they are done and the women workers watch the other children in the room while the men can’t be in there. Some days the infant room is never even enterable by the male workers as one mother after another comes in to feed… Other days four will come at once and no one else comes in to feed all day, you never can tell. But when they are there the men are booted out and can’t work that part of the job until they are done and they work in the toddler or preschooler room while they are banned from the infant room.

Ah, the sexualization of breast feeding. Yet another harmful stereotype being further perpetuated.

Why? If the only thing stopping a man going into a room is that a woman feels uncomfortable, why shouldn't the same apply to someone of a certain race?

...the entire sexism accusation of unfair bigotry amounting to discrimination against men applies here too...



Can men do the job of gym trainers and diet councilors as well as a women can? Of course they can.

Should it be allowed that men are banned from working at a gym just because the women customers feel uncomfortable with men there? The women feel better if there are no men in the area while they are doing their stuff so the men can’t have the job?

Yes, it is fine to NOT hire men in those gender specific situations where the customer is happier if men are not there. Sexism bigotry be damned, men aren’t welcome there. Whereas, racial discrimination will not be tolerated. Here’s three examples.

Curves (http://www.curves.com/curves_right/)
Contours express (http://www.contoursexpress.com/)
Liberty Fitness (http://www.libertyfitness.com/index.asp)

It's simple, these places are designed so that women are empowered there, they don't have males hanging around, simply because they don't feel comfortable with them there. They like it that way and it's NOT anything like racial bigotry.

How then are these places different than a baby care center? They have gender exclusion hiring practices. They don’t hire men trainers and gym workers, and you know what, it’s not bigotry. How is a baby care center, a nursery for women and their children to come and feel safe and secure and empowered to set the limits for themselves and keep their young children in a safe place collectively, somehow unethical or different? The women in charge of the baby care center dictate which husband/fathers enter and help and they tell those same men when to leave and when to come back… This is NOT a racial discrimination no matter how many times you try to pretend that it is.

...
Ah, the sexualization of breast feeding. Yet another harmful stereotype being further perpetuated.

Your arguments are so shallow sometimes. Who said ANYTHING about sexualization of breastfeeding? No one but you. I was talking about providing a place where women feel comfortable to do it, under their terms, not yours.

How then are these places different than a baby care center?

First of all, these places aren't churches. They are businesses trying to make a profit. It doesn't matter to them if they perpetuate harmful stereotypes to do it. A church has a little more moral obligation than that.

Second of all, these places are exclusively frequented by women. As such, it makes a bit more sense to restrict hiring practices than it does with childcare. A daycare is not exclusively frequented by women, despite your attempts to make it seem as if men have nothing to do with childcare. Both parents are going to worry about their children's surroundings. Both parents are going to want to ensure that their children get the best care. And both parents can be involved in providing it. If there is only one parent, male or female, that parent will have all of these worries and will be the sole parent in the child's life.

Daycare centers do not have a female-only clientele. Men are clients as well. Thus, your analogy of a female-only gym doesn't work. This is more like a gym utilized by both men and women, but hiring men only to do half of the jobs, and telling them that they cannot do the other jobs because they are a danger to everyone there.

How is a baby care center, a nursery for women and their children to come and feel safe and secure and empowered to set the limits for themselves and keep their young children in a safe place collectively, somehow unethical or different?

Well, there's this little fact that fathers are parents, too! This means that the daycare center isn't for women and their children. It is for parents and their children. Why do you try so hard to cut the man out of being a parent?

The women in charge of the baby care center dictate which husband/fathers enter and help and they tell those same men when to leave and when to come back… This is NOT a racial discrimination no matter how many times you try to pretend that it is.

No, it is sex-discrimination. It is based in the harmful stereotype that men are somehow incapable of childcare and that they are automatically a danger to the children there.

Your arguments are so shallow sometimes. Who said ANYTHING about sexualization of breastfeeding? No one but you. I was talking about providing a place where women feel comfortable to do it, under their terms, not yours.

And they feel uncomfortable because they have been told from birth that the breasts are automatically sexual and that they should be completely hidden from male view. Without this viewpoint, there would be no problem with breastfeeding in front of a man, anymore than there is a problem with scratching your arm in front of a man.

Dempublicents has answered your questions every time Pootwaddle, but you have never answered hers. You've just put up straw men, said her points were irrelevant without explainnig why, or just ignored them.

You've said it's sexist and it's fine. You say the reason it is fine is because people will be uncomfortable with men looking after their children. Therefore if people would be uncomfortable with black women looking after their kids, would that be fine? If not, why is racism not acceptable but sexism is. Please, finally answer this question.

An analogy has to be analogous. That means their needs to be some similarity. Gender specific locker rooms are just that. There is one gender in them. The day care does not have one gender in them. To try to say that a child is sexless, is just ridiculous. Thus your analogy is irrelevant and a red herring.

[deliberate foolish argument that has parallels with Pootwaddle's position]
many people would feel a lot more comfortable with all male emergency services as women are weaker and more emotional. The fire fighter would have a harder time getting me out of the burning building, and would be more likely to make an emotional decision, instead of the correct, coldly rational decision. A policewomen would be more likely to have her gun wrestled from her, and be unable to stop the criminal. Thus women should not be allowed to work in the emergency services as the public would prefer men.
[/finish deliberately foolish argument]
To be serious, I believe that a women, if she was in the emergency services, was completely competent to do her job, or she wouldn't have the job. That is exactly the same mindset that has to be applied with child care. The prospective employee is rigorously checked, and should be placed under ongoing checks, male or female.

First of all, these places aren't churches. They are businesses trying to make a profit. It doesn't matter to them if they perpetuate harmful stereotypes to do it. A church has a little more moral obligation than that.

They aren't harmful stereotypes for a profit. They are clubs for women to feel empowered without the need to face down men..

- by Rande LaDue
In an article last year in CBI (Club Business International) Magazine, John McCarthy, the Executive Director of IHRSA (International Health & Racquet Sports Association) addressed the issue of Women-Only Clubs. IHRSA estimates that there are approximately 2,000 women-only fitness centers in the US serving approximately 2 million women. McCarthy cited research done for IHRSA by Dr. Christine Brooks of the University of Michigan's Fitness Research Center, which indicated a variety of reasons large groups of women did not use coed facilities, especially the large population of de-conditioned women who are in the most need of regular exercise but have the most anxiety about beginning.

We at Pro*Fit Enterprises could not agree more. Since over half of our sales of our PACE hydraulic circuit equipment is sold to women-only clubs, experience tells us that intimidation is the #1 reason why the de-conditioned/overweight/senior woman does not join a coed facility. We say, if a women-only club with a non-intimidating program such as PACE is what it takes to get a non-exerciser off the couch and into a healthy lifestyle, we are all for it! Sadly, there have been a few court cases testing the validity of women-only facilities. We are pleased that we know of no successful action in these cases! We feel that women-only clubs are here to stay; there is a real need for these types of clubs if we are ever going to see a positive change in the health of this country! We are pleased to offer free informaion and video to any one interested in opening their own women's club. Contact Pro*Fit Enterprises at 888-604-2244 for details or visit our web site at http://www.pacegroupexercise.com. Pro*Fit Enteprises is recognized as a Continuing Education Specialist by the American Council on Exercise (ACE).
link (http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/ladue2.html)

Second of all, these places are exclusively frequented by women. As such, it makes a bit more sense to restrict hiring practices than it does with childcare. A daycare is not exclusively frequented by women, despite your attempts to make it seem as if men have nothing to do with childcare. Both parents are going to worry about their children's surroundings. Both parents are going to want to ensure that their children get the best care. And both parents can be involved in providing it. If there is only one parent, male or female, that parent will have all of these worries and will be the sole parent in the child's life.

Daycare centers do not have a female-only clientele. Men are clients as well. Thus, your analogy of a female-only gym doesn't work. This is more like a gym utilized by both men and women, but hiring men only to do half of the jobs, and telling them that they cannot do the other jobs because they are a danger to everyone there.

I am, and have been saying the word daycare from time to time, but I have defined the parameters of the children I have been talking about to pre-schoolers and younger. So we remember what I am talking about and not your simplistic example of a 'day-care' provider... But to the point, fathers ARE welcome to come in and check it out. But they aren't allowed to just brush their way in unannounced. They have to have permission.

This is NOT like a female and male mixed gym. Women are in charge, women decide who is and who is not allowed in the room while they are breastfeeding. Your attempt to add men into the mixture is simply your last ditch effort to try and pretend like we are bigots for letting the women organize the schedule and determine who is and who is not a qualified worker unit in the area they control. Accusing them (the women running it) and us (their husbands) of sexism bigotry because they determine the workers, what hogwash.



Well, there's this little fact that fathers are parents, too! This means that the daycare center isn't for women and their children. It is for parents and their children. Why do you try so hard to cut the man out of being a parent?

Of course fathers are parents. I'm a father, and I am a helper worker there. ALL of the men that are helpers there are fathers with children there. Who cut the men out of the equation? Looks like you made another strawman.


No, it is sex-discrimination. It is based in the harmful stereotype that men are somehow incapable of childcare and that they are automatically a danger to the children there.

No one accused any man of NOT being perfectly capable of watching a kid with above and beyond devotion and skill. Another red herring on your part. We are talking about letting the women control the area, their region, their domain, they set the rules, they determine what they are comfortable with, not me, not other men, and not you.

They aren't harmful stereotypes for a profit. They are clubs for women to feel empowered without the need to face down men.

You don't think that women being automatically intimidated by men is a problem?

I am, and have been saying the word daycare from time to time, but I have defined the parameters of the children I have been talking about to pre-schoolers and younger.

And? Men are somehow less capable of caring for these children because they are younger?

So we remember what I am talking about and not your simplistic example of a 'day-care' provider... But to the point, fathers ARE welcome to come in and check it out. But they aren't allowed to just brush their way in unannounced. They have to have permission.

But mothers do not?

This IS not a female and male mixed gym. Women are in charge, women decide who is and who is not allowed in the room while they are breastfeeding. Your attempt to add men into the mixture is simply your last ditch effort to try and pretend like we are bigots for letting the women organized the schedule and determine who is and who is not a qualified worker unit in the area they control. Accusing them (the women running it) and us (their husbands) of sexism bigotry because they determine the workers, what hogwash.

They determine the workers and their duties by sex, based upon harmful stereotypes of men. That is sexism. It is bigotry.

Of course fathers are parents. I'm a father, and I am a helper worker there. ALL of the men that are helpers there are fathers with children there. Who cut the men out of the equation? Looks like you made another strawman.

No, I didn't. You said the facilities were for women and their children, as if men have no say or interest in the care of their children. It was you who cut them out.

You've talked about women dropping off children, as if men never do. It was you who cut them out.

You've talked about men all being clumsy and incompetent when it comes to childcare. It was you who cut them out.

You've claimed that it makes sense for a man to be required to keep the door open when in a room with children, regardless of noise level, but it doesn't make sense for the same rule to be applied to women. It was you who cut the men out.

No one accused any man of NOT being perfectly capable of watching a kid with above and beyond devotion and skill.

Yes, you did. You said that women who drop children off at the center see all men as burly, clumsy men with calloused hands who had no idea what they were doing when handling a child. When I claimed that this was not consistent with reality, you accused me of insulting people.

You have claimed that women are innately more capable of changing diapers - that men can be trained to do it, but not to do it well, as if women are automatically good at it.

You have claimed that a man is more dangerous alone in a room with a child than a woman, based on nothing more than the fact that he has a penis.

My dear, you have been, throughout this thread, claiming that men are not capable of doing this.

We are talking about letting the women control the area, their region, their domain, they set the rules, the determine what they are comfortable with, not me, not other men, and not you.

It is only "their domain" because you have chosen to exclude the men. It makes as much sense as saying, "Women control the kitchen, because it is their domain, they set the rules, they determine what they are comfortable with...." Of course, I've known some damn good male cooks who run their own kitchens. Men are only excluded from kitchens because of gender stereotypes. And I've known some men who are very good caretakers and could control the area just as well - if they weren't excluded on the basis that they have penises.

...
An analogy has to be analogous. That means their needs to be some similarity. Gender specific locker rooms are just that. There is one gender in them. The day care does not have one gender in them. To try to say that a child is sexless, is just ridiculous. Thus your analogy is irrelevant and a red herring.
...

A newborn is a newborn, six weeks old or six months old, a baby makes the mother neverous about who watches them. It doesn't matter if the infant is a boy or girl, the baby's gender is sexless to this question and topic.

A newborn is a newborn, six weeks old or six months old, a baby makes the mother neverous about who watches them. It doesn't matter if the infant is a boy or girl, the baby's gender is sexless to this question and topic.

But a father has nothing to do with it? We only worry about how the mother feels, as if the father doesn't care at all about who watches his children?

Do these women also cut the fathers of their children out of their children's care, or is it just you?

Of course, your response makes it exceedingly clear why the locker room analogy falls short of being at all useful. Locker rooms are segregated by sex to keep male and females separated when they are in various states of undress. If the sex of the baby doesn't matter, then locker room analogies have nothing to do with it. The same logic is not being applied.

You don't think that women being automatically intimidated by men is a problem?

You think that is the realm of our responsibility and we should be able to fix that at the infant day care center at our church?

Perhaps we should concentrate on making a good place for the parents and mothers that bring their babies there and concentrate on social reform somewhere else…

And? Men are somehow less capable of caring for these children because they are younger? Yes, because they need to be fed by their mothers from time to time and we provide that safety environment for that activity.



But mothers do not?

Are you kidding? The mothers are the ones running the place. I already told you, the mothers using the center are the ones in charge of running it and working it. For crying out loud.


They determine the workers and their duties by sex, based upon harmful stereotypes of men. That is sexism. It is bigotry.

Fine.


No, I didn't. You said the facilities were for women and their children, as if men have no say or interest in the care of their children. It was you who cut them out.

I am a man that works there as a helper, how did I cut myself out?

You've talked about women dropping off children, as if men never do. It was you who cut them out.

The truth is, men almost never, almost entirely never, drop them off there. But not never.

You've talked about men all being clumsy and incompetent when it comes to childcare. It was you who cut them out.

I used myself and my wife as an example. I never said incompetent, I said burly and clumsy and calloused fingers…

You've claimed that it makes sense for a man to be required to keep the door open when in a room with children, regardless of noise level, but it doesn't make sense for the same rule to be applied to women. It was you who cut the men out.

Yes, this part was true. I said men are never allowed to be alone with the children with a closed door at our center. They can be behind a closed door and children and at least one other adult. I think it’s a good rule, would you have us ignore the child abuse the world suffers from?


Yes, you did. You said that women who drop children off at the center see all men as burly, clumsy men with calloused hands who had no idea what they were doing when handling a child. When I claimed that this was not consistent with reality, you accused me of insulting people.

You asked where I live that people can’t see reality. I was describing myself, I didn’t think it was insulting to talk about myself that way.

You have claimed that women are innately more capable of changing diapers - that men can be trained to do it, but not to do it well, as if women are automatically good at it.

I did NOT. I said some wives think their husbands are not good enough to work in the baby care center. And you said you thought they were trained, and I said they are trained but that doesn’t mean we can make them good at it.

You have claimed that a man is more dangerous alone in a room with a child than a woman, based on nothing more than the fact that he has a penis.

Nope, I claimed that the parents feel less comfortable with men alone in a room with the children. IF they think the man is more of a threat because of his penis, than attack the public opinion, not my baby care center.

My dear, you have been, throughout this thread, claiming that men are not capable of doing this. My dear, please show me that quote then if I am guilty of that.


It is only "their domain" because you have chosen to exclude the men. It makes as much sense as saying, "Women control the kitchen, because it is their domain, they set the rules, they determine what they are comfortable with...." Of course, I've known some damn good male cooks who run their own kitchens. Men are only excluded from kitchens because of gender stereotypes. And I've known some men who are very good caretakers and could control the area just as well - if they weren't excluded on the basis that they have penises.

Bad analogy there Hun. I am the cook in our house and the kitchen is mine. Take you false accusations and red herrings and strawmen elsewhere please.

You think that is the realm of our responsibility and we should be able to fix that at the infant day care center at our church?

I think a church should work to correct any social ills it can.

Perhaps we should concentrate on making a good place for the parents and mothers that bring their babies there and concentrate on social reform somewhere else…

It isn't really a good place for the (parents and mothers? Aren't mothers parents) parents or the children when these harmful stereotypes are being supported there.

Yes, because they need to be fed by their mothers from time to time and we provide that safety environment for that activity.

I don't see how this suggests that men are unable to take care of the ones who aren't currently being taken care of by their own parents.

Are you kidding? The mothers are the ones running the place. I already told you, the mothers using the center are the ones in charge of running it and working it. For crying out loud.

Yes, you did. But you said it as if it were a given simply based on the fact that the center exists. It isn't. You hvae chosen to have only mthers in charge of running it and working it.

Fine.

And you see no problem with your church instituting bigotry?

I am a man that works there as a helper, how did I cut myself out?

By acting as if only your wife would ever drop your children off or be concerned with who was taking care of them.

By acting as if it is ok that you are viewed (in fact, agreeing with the viewpoint) that you are more of a danger to children than a woman simply because you have a penis.

By claiming that men (presumably including yourself) are incompetent at childcare.

The truth is, men almost never, almost entirely never, drop them off there. But not never.

You spoke of a single father. I'm fairly certain he would drop off his kids. And even if a father is not the one dropping the children off, I'm sure he worries about who is taking care of them.

I used myself and my wife as an example. I never said incompetent, I said burly and clumsy and calloused fingers…

You said he was clumsy and looked like he was trying to figure out what he was doing, just trying to be polite, as if that is a hardship for him - in other words, incompetent.

Yes, this part was true. I said men are never allowed to be alone with the children with a closed door at our center. They can be behind a closed door and children and at least one other adult. I think it’s a good rule, would you have us ignore the child abuse the world suffers from?

If being left alone with an adult puts a child at risk of child abuse, then being left alone with any adult puts a child at risk of child abuse. If you feel that such a rule is necessary, it should be equally applied to men and women.

You asked where I live that people can’t see reality. I was describing myself, I didn’t think it was insulting to talk about myself that way.

No, you weren't. You said that women who drop their children off see all men as burly, clumsy, and calloused as well as seeing them as being confused about what they're doing. Unless you've had a sex change, you don't meet that description.

I did NOT. I said some wives think their husbands are not good enough to work in the baby care center. And you said you thought they were trained, and I said they are trained but that doesn’t mean we can make them good at it.

No, that isn't how the conversation went. We were talking about men in general, not just specific men, or their wive's opinions.

Nope, I claimed that the parents feel less comfortable with men alone in a room with the children. IF they think the man is more of a threat because of his penis, than attack the public opinion, not my baby care center.

Why should your baby care center perpetuate harmful stereotypes?

And, once again, you run into the problem of trying to justify bigotry with, "But it makes people who hold sexist views more comfortable." You have yet to show a single way in which this is different from pandering to any other type of bigotry to make people more comfortable.

My dear, please show me that quote then if I am guilty of that.

Your entire argument claims this.

Bad analogy there Hun. I am the cook in our house and the kitchen is mine. Take you false accusations and red herrings and strawmen elsewhere please.

Actually, your response just proves my point. The kitchen has traditionally been seen as the woman's domain, simply because she is a woman, even if a man is a better cook.

Likewise, your church has chosen to make this facility the woman's domain, simply because they are women. Obviously, if you can be the cook in your house and have the kitchen as your domain, there is nothing inherent that makes such a childcare center the woman's domain.

You don't think that women being automatically intimidated by men is a problem?
You think that is the realm of our responsibility and we should be able to fix that at the infant day care center at our church?

Fixing it, maybe not. Reinforcing the impression that all males are potential child molesteres, and all women are perfectly safe? That's a huge problem. Especially at that impressionalbe age.

There are so few good male role models for children these days, as it is, without a church, of all places, further denigrating men.

I think a church should work to correct any social ills it can.

How many social ills do you address at your church? We have the service, the minister spends a majority of their time talking about such issues at our church. We don’t have a problem with the way the Sunday school stuff and the child activities and youth group is run, we have plenty of men in those sections with the children, but the women run the baby-care center.


It isn't really a good place for the (parents and mothers? Aren't mothers parents) parents or the children when these harmful stereotypes are being supported there.

Right. Prove they are harmful. By kindergarten the children are in the youth program with plenty of men role samples.


I don't see how this suggests that men are unable to take care of the ones who aren't currently being taken care of by their own parents.

There are only three rooms, if two have breastfeeding going on the men are limited to only one room, but there are still other children in the infant and toddler room that need watching, so a woman is required there.


Yes, you did. But you said it as if it were a given simply based on the fact that the center exists. It isn't. You hvae chosen to have only mthers in charge of running it and working it.

We have chosen to make it as user friendly as possible. If that bothers you, I’m sorry.


And you see no problem with your church instituting bigotry?

And you see no problem with making false accusations repeatedly? Gender segregation IS allowed, whether you have a pet peeve with it or not.


By acting as if only your wife would ever drop your children off or be concerned with who was taking care of them.


By acting as if it is ok that you are viewed (in fact, agreeing with the viewpoint) that you are more of a danger to children than a woman simply because you have a penis.

By claiming that men (presumably including yourself) are incompetent at childcare.

I was claiming that its customary for the mother looking at the two of us to hand their child to the woman, not the man. And I know it’s true by witnessing it. The insulting stuff you added to the story, not me.

You like to ADD stuff don’t you. Who said anything about men not being concerned? You, and you, and you. Not me. And since it’s true that it’s mostly women who drop off the children and the woman with the matching ID card that comes and picks them up again, get mad all you want about your fictional person who is offended at our center all you want.

You spoke of a single father. I'm fairly certain he would drop off his kids. And even if a father is not the one dropping the children off, I'm sure he worries about who is taking care of them.

He used to pick them up too. I said almost never, but not never. That’s why we do background checks, that’s why we do interviews if they want, that’s why we do tours repeatedly and that’s why we have an open door policy, a card ID check in and out system, a church wide ID calling system if there is an emergency we can type in their card ID number and the parent will see that on the display throughput the various church rooms.

You said he was clumsy and looked like he was trying to figure out what he was doing, just trying to be polite, as if that is a hardship for him - in other words, incompetent.

It IS a challenge and an uncomfortable and understandable feeling to try and make people feel comfortable, its very hard. You don’t know if you should twiddle your thumbs or try to look busy, smile or try not to smile like an moron for too long… Basically it’s just best to be yourself, but you are being visually searched from top to bottom and judged like you are judged nowhere else when those mothers drop off their baby’s for the first time. YOU should be able to understand why.

If being left alone with an adult puts a child at risk of child abuse, then being left alone with any adult puts a child at risk of child abuse. If you feel that such a rule is necessary, it should be equally applied to men and women.

Like I said, don’t use our center then if you don’t like what we do. We don’t lie about it. Most of the time, a vast majority of the time if the door is shut there will be two adults in the room (or more) but we do not guarantee it, but if a single adult is temporarily in a room with the door shut, it will be a woman. The parents that use the center like it that way.

No, you weren't. You said that women who drop their children off see all men as burly, clumsy, and calloused as well as seeing them as being confused about what they're doing. Unless you've had a sex change, you don't meet that description.

I don’t meet what description? (edit) Ah, I get it. But you forget, we get to know these people better and better, and eventually they end up working with you more often then not. THEN we talk about what it was like when we first met, etc., etc., and everyone has a big laugh. Perhaps you've made friends at work or church yourself, it's not that hard to imagine.

Why should your baby care center perpetuate harmful stereotypes?

And, once again, you run into the problem of trying to justify bigotry with, "But it makes people who hold sexist views more comfortable." You have yet to show a single way in which this is different from pandering to any other type of bigotry to make people more comfortable.

I’m freely admitting it. But what you don’t understand is that it DOES justify it, especially in the case of parents and their very young children and babies… That justifies gender bigotry for women and breastfeeding rooms and infant care…

An you have yet to show how that is a problem. The public that uses our center is not complaining, why are you offended for the condition of the fictitious character you have created in your head? That person does not exist at our church. The vast majority of the parents want it run by women, so it is, if there is even a single objector I am currently unaware of them.

Actually, your response just proves my point. The kitchen has traditionally been seen as the woman's domain, simply because she is a woman, even if a man is a better cook.

Likewise, your church has chosen to make this facility the woman's domain, simply because they are women. Obviously, if you can be the cook in your house and have the kitchen as your domain, there is nothing inherent that makes such a childcare center the woman's domain.

I don't breastfeed there, why should I have any say about their rules.

I signed up to a website in order to find a good babysitter.
Why bother with the internet? Just use a reliable person you know.

I’m freely admitting it. But what you don’t understand is that it DOES justify it, especially in the case of parents and their very young children and babies… That justifies gender bigotry for women and breastfeeding rooms and infant care…[/QUOTE]

You sir, are rather disgusting. What you in effect are saying is that when Hitler called for the slaughter of Jews, and because it made most people comfortable (by allowing them to not necessarily be killed themselves) not only was it acceptable, but it was indeed morally right. How can you (especially, especially in a Church) feel that anything of this sort justifies bigotry... if the mother direly needs to breastfeed... are there not bathrooms? Can she not step out of a public ('Hey I've got news for you, when you are in public PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU!' - sound familiar, anyone? lol) area to do something that is apparently indecent? If SHE is uncomfortable with a natural human action, then SHE can make herself COMFORTABLE in another room that happens to contain no adult males.

And why exactly does your Church feel the need to pander to the public?

*Edit* that quote is by Poot, I think it is his last post?

There are a few male teachers at the preschool program that I teach at, the insurance says they cannot be alone with children unless there is a woman in the room..... I don't know what I think about that.

One word: discrimination.

Of course it should. One has to remain faithful to one's history and roots.
History does not matter, only the commands of the Lord do.

I've babysat; but I don't go out of my way to appeal to the children I've babysat. If they want to play the part of an NSG-surrogate and argue politics with me for a few hours, we'll connect - otherwise, I just settle in with a good book and remind them every once in a while not to stick their fingers in the food processor, or light fires in the waste-paper baskets.

If there wasn't this pervasive apprehension about leaving children in the care of those with penii residing in their pants, perhaps I'd be more engaging; but frankly, I wouldn't trust the parent-child bond not to misinterpret some innocuous interaction to the detriment of the owners/operators of said penii - to the extent that the only sensible action in these situations is a near-complete absence of action.