After Amy Kuras posted this piece about Boy Scouts getting training to be baby sitters,
I was surprised to see some of the comments assuming that male
caregivers are de facto abuse risks to children. Not only do I think
this is a woefully discriminatory way of viewing half the human
population, I think there might even be some benefits to male
caregivers that female caregivers don't offer. I propose that it can
even be dangerous to exclude boys and men as boys and men from childcare and that using them as caregivers can even help prevent abuse.
First
let me address the discrimination aspect. I am sure that many
Strollerderby readers have fathers, husbands, brothers and perhaps
old-enough-to-baby-sit sons who aren't abusers and could never be
abusers. Of course they do. So I have to scratch my head at the
knee-jerk fear some women express about the idea of a male baby
sitter. To categorically dismiss all boys and men as potential abusers
doesn't make sense. Yes, statistically, most abusers are "heterosexual" men, but statistically,
most abusers are also related to the children they abuse. In fact,
some statistics show that one third of sexual molestation is
perpetrated by a parent. But I bet most moms don't refuse to allow
their children's fathers to be alone with their children because of the
statistical probability that they will be abusers. It would be
ridiculous to use statistics that way, right? Relying on statistical
percentages rather than actual knowledge of an individual baby sitter
applicant would be similarly foolish.
I think categorically mistrusting male caregivers and categorically trusting female ones is in itself dangerous. Why? Because
Read More...