Daycare poll

) writes:
So, in theory, it would be
much more likely that a woman would abuse your children than a man.

I believe that's mainly (or only) because you're much
more likely to leave your children with a woman than with a man
(mainly because most of the available dcp are women)
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.

"Barbara Bomberger" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:05:56 -0700, "Circe" wrote:
wrote in message
groups.com...
I guess Men are more likely to abuse children that women afterall.
Theres really no way I can dispute it anymore.

Oh, waaah, poor you. That's not what was said and you know it. Given the
same exact *opportunity*, it's likely that the rates of child abuse and
neglect would be pretty much EQUAL for both genders. It's just that as
long
as women are BY FAR more likely to be primary caregivers than men, you'd
EXPECT more women to commit these crimes than men.

When it comes to sexual abuse, however, the fact that men commit 70% of
these offenses DESPITE being FAR less likely to be caregivers than women
is
in exact opposition to what you would EXPECT if men and women were equally
likely to commit these offenses. If the likelihood were equal, you would
expect MORE cases of sexual abuse to be perpetrated by women than men,
just
as more cases of child abuse and neglect are. That's just not the case,
much
as I suspect ALL of us would like it to be.

My problem is that I suspect many more women abuse young boys
including their sons, but because theres no traditional
,,pentration,,for lack of a better word, the boys are taught not to
consider it as abuse

While there probably is underreporting when it comes to female-male sexual
abuse (my husband has said more than once when a case of a female teacher
having sex with one or more of her teenaged male students comes up that, for
boys that age, it probably seems like a FAVOR, not abuse!), it still seems
highly unlikely that it is so underreported that it could skew the numbers
so wildly if women were indeed as likely to commit sex crimes against
children as men. As mentioned, women have so much greater OPPORTUNITY to
commit all forms of abuse against children (including sex abuse) rhan men
do. Even if sexual abuse by women is underreported (and I suspect that it
is), it is still difficult to imagine that it is so VASTLY underreported
that it skews the statistics by that much.
--
Be well, Barbara

Its of no consequence. I estimate something like 0.1% of adults have
abused children. So, to divide that propotionally, according the gender
ratio of abuse, between men and women, the diffrence would be
unremarkable. To discriminate against men in an early years setting
would be based on the same principles used to discriminate against
black people. So, why is it more acceptable?

wrote:
Its of no consequence. I estimate something like 0.1% of adults have
abused children.

Hmm...from what I can tell, the Child Welfare League reports nearly a
million cases of child abuse and neglect per year, and that's with 13 states
not reporting. That figure will involve some double counting, as some of it
is per-victim or per-incident, but on the other hand, it only involves
neglect
and abuse that makes it into the legal system, which probably seriously
undercounts. *And* that's just a single year's figures. That suggests that
the proportion of adults who abuse or neglect is, sadly, quite a bit higher
than 0.1%.

Best wishes,
Ericka

) writes:
To discriminate against men in an early years setting
would be based on the same principles used to discriminate against
black people. So, why is it more acceptable?

No, it would be a similar principle to discriminating
against young women because they might get pregnant and
quit their jobs. Did anyone say it's acceptable?

P. Tierney, I hope you will stick with it and not
allow some discrimination to stop you. We need to take
steps forward towards the ideal society of the future
where men and women will feel more comfortable choosing
the career they want without worrying about that sort
of discrimination. The first pioneers need some bravery.
The fact that you post so much on this newsgroup shows
how much energy you're interested in putting into caring
for children.
--
Cathy Woodgold
http://www.ncf.ca/~an588/par_home.html
We are all Iraqis now.

It's true, statistics show that men are more likely to abuse children
than women. What I'm saying is even though they're more likely the
number of male abuses and the number of female abuses isnt that
diffrent if you give it as a percentage of the entire population of
both sexes.

Anyway, reading people's responses it seems many would feel some
uncertainity with a male early years worker but would make concious
effort to see past it, which you cant fault.

In article .com,
wrote:

Its of no consequence. I estimate something like 0.1% of adults have
abused children. So, to divide that propotionally, according the gender
ratio of abuse, between men and women, the diffrence would be
unremarkable. To discriminate against men in an early years setting
would be based on the same principles used to discriminate against
black people. So, why is it more acceptable?


Just out of curiosity, does that estimate come from anywhere? I suspect
that 1 out of 1,000 is too low -- although if you are only taking about
abuse that has resulted in legal action, you could be right.

But you have an interesting point to make. If it could be proven that,
say, white care takers were fractionally more likely to abuse children
in their care than were Asian care takers, would it be considered just
good sense to hire only Asian care takers, to give that franctionally
better chance that the kids would not be abused?
--
Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care

wrote:
It's true, statistics show that men are more likely to abuse children
than women. What I'm saying is even though they're more likely the
number of male abuses and the number of female abuses isnt that
diffrent if you give it as a percentage of the entire population of
both sexes.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree a bit. I disagreed
with your "1 in 1000" estimate before, but I think that is missing
the mark too. There are all different kinds of neglect and abuse.
Beyond that, there's just plain old stupidity and poor judgement.
Different kinds of problems are more or less likely, statistically
speaking, in different contexts or with different assorted
demographic groups, and I'm sure some problems are pretty
much across the board. On top of that, folks' perceptions about
what problems are more likely where or with what sorts of people
are often very out of whack.
Ultimately, when it comes down to Things You'd Rather Your
Child's Caregiver Didn't Do, the number of things that fall well short
of abuse probably substantially outnumbers the number of things
that are actually abusive. So, for myself, while I'd try hard to
minimize the risk of abuse, I'd have plenty to do to just trying to
find a place that didn't do things I didn't approve of. I might
well find more discrepancy on those issues than I would on the
abuse issues.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Well said. I've been making an issue about something that im arguing
shouldnt be a big issue.