Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

NY Times writer refuses to hire superbly qualified babysitter, because he's male Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aliluvschoc)
    I think there are a very small number of roles for which in the vast majority of cases would be defined by gender. Whilst a woman may be understandably reluctant to have her small daughter looked after by a man, I'm sure most men wouldn't hire a woman for (as a silly example) a body guard.
    David Cameron doesn't seem to think it's a problem:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11944751

    Of course, that's just a 'silly example'.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Replace the words 'men' and 'women' by 'blacks' and 'whites' and see if you still feel comfortable with that...
    I couldnt because I dont know how race and paedophilia correlate.

    I could, however, say the following:

    Young black men are more likely to be perpetrators and victims of knife crime than young white men.

    There. That wasnt hard. People arent comfortable with these facts, but thats what they are. Facts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    It is discrimination. Whether that is acceptable or not is a different matter. Societies tend to have a strange idea of when discrimination is or isn't acceptable. Of course, one could construct a statistical argument that says that because men commit more child-sex crimes then it is safer to employ a woman, but one can use that argument to justify a small business owner only employing white workers because they are statistically less likely to commit crime than black ones. We seem to have no problems in allowing insurance companies to use a similar style of discrimination.

    However, I don't really think that the writer in question ever got anywhere near such a statistical argument as she was just acting out in accordance to an ingrained series of social norms that state that childcare is women's work and that men cannot see naked female children without having sexual thoughts, neither of which are correct.
    Excellent post. Says exactly what I was thinking, but put in a more eloquent manner than I could ever hope to acheive.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    Why? I'm not asking for the fact that parental instincts lead to incredibly conservative behaviour, I'm asking why you think it is acceptable that people should be allowed to exempt themselves from moral and legal obligations when it concerns their children?
    This is her family. Do you really believe legal and socially constructed morals should control who you can choose as a baby sitter? To protect your own loved one?

    I think it's a natural thing that you'll find most women cannot overcome. They want in place of them a mother figure. That figure is not a man.


    Similarly you hear about celebrities hiring male nannies to look after their children because they do not have a male partner - their reasoning being they want the children to have male support too.


    I see no issue.



    I also think people are overlooking the fact that the mother may just want a motherly figure for the child. It is not necessarily about any risk of sexual assault.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    I couldnt because I dont know how race and paedophilia correlate.

    I could, however, say the following:

    Young black men are more likely to be perpetrators and victims of knife crime than young white men.

    There. That wasnt hard. People arent comfortable with these facts, but thats what they are. Facts.
    However, that's only part of the story here. What you also need to be comfortable saying is that you are happy for someone to therefore discriminate against a perfectly good candidate for a job because he is black and therefore is more likely to stab the customers.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChemistBoy)
    David Cameron doesn't seem to think it's a problem:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/11944751

    Of course, that's just a 'silly example'.
    More high profile celebrities - the average person would more easily fit into the (obvious) stereotype I proposed.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think its fine that she chose a women over a man, it's her choice.

    I do however, think it's absolutely ludicrous how scared people in this thread are of sexual predators. I can see the media scaremongering is working, freaking idiots.

    This reminds me of that other thread about keeping your baby fully clothed. Seem to remember Antonia87 being rather outspoken in that thread too. Each to their own I guess but seems like you guys have some issues to sort out, to say the least.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think she'll refuse to this one....


    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    While I do think with something like a babysitter, the parent should get the ultimate choice, I do think this is a bit crazy. If her baby was a boy, I bet she wouldn't have any problems with employing a female babysitter, so whats the bloody difference here?



    Except of course that many places use the same cleaners for both sets of toilets / changing rooms. So it could be a male cleaner or a female cleaner, cleaning the other sexes place.



    As I have said above, most places DO have a male cleaning the female changing rooms (or a female cleaning the male ones). Simply because they don't employ two sets of cleaners.

    As for waiters, again, my girlfriend works in a Chinese restaurant, yet she is English and of no Chinese origin. Why does it matter??
    It is legal to discriminate in these circumstances; you are a moron if you do not why it is can be bad for business to have a guy from China working in an italian restaurant - it's a well known, well argued case.

    And no most places - gyms, health clubs etc - in the UK DO NOT have a male cleaning the female changing rooms - what planet are you on?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kreuzuerk)
    Did you read the article?
    Yes, I just typed it rather too quickly (and somewhat unthinkingly). I also have the episode from Friends where Ross objects to a male nanny stuck in my head now.

    Edited the original post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If it's your child, then you should be entitled to hire someone you are comfortable looking after it, not feel pressured/forced by society or equality laws to hire someone. If she's not comfortable with a man, then that should be her business. She has admitted that he probably would do it better but it's her choice.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The responses in this thread are crazy; who cares if a (highly qualifed, background checked etc etc) man sees your baby girl naked? She's a BABY!

    The writer is being silly and most definitely discriminating, but I don't think anyone needs to be sued. If she's decided (for whatever illogical reason) that she doesn't trust a man alone around her children then it's a shame but so be it. A babysitter is different than a normal employee.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    If I was choosing a babysitter for my child, I would want it to be someone who I could trust and who I related to.. if I didn't want the man looking after the child, then I wouldn't hire him. Simple as.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DOA)
    source

    in short


    this is just sexism in its purest form
    what do you think of the story?
    I think she should be sued for discrimation because she admitted that her problem was he was male, do you agree?
    It's her money, it's her choice. Quit trying to stir up trouble. I'm a male, and I wouldn't want another male watching over my daughter if I had one. However I wouldn't mind a woman watching over my son. Why? Women are very unlikely to be aggressors. Cases of sexual abuse concerning females are a tiny fraction of the total. Young children respond better to women. Any man actually motivated to change diapers is a bit sad anyway from my perspective. There are jobs men shouldn't do. Women walking into a lingerie shop would be reluctant to buy anything if a straight man was at the till. Likewise I wouldn't hire a woman as a bouncer in a nightclub because she would be unlikely to be able to eject rowdy patrons or command the respect of drunk perverts.

    No offense, but mind your own business. I know the journalist actually willingly published her story herself, but she probably didn't expect people with too much free time to get all riled up.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aliluvschoc)
    This is her family. Do you really believe legal and socially constructed morals should control who you can choose as a baby sitter? To protect your own loved one?
    As an employer I think you should be constrained by the same rules as other employers. I presume this woman has no problem with male teachers, for example, yet they are entrusted with the care of many young female children. I don't believe that people should be free to practice hateful discrimination on emotive pretexts especially when the benefits are pretty negligible.

    I think it's a natural thing that you'll find most women cannot overcome. They want in place of them a mother figure. That figure is not a man.


    Similarly you hear about celebrities hiring male nannies to look after their children because they do not have a male partner - their reasoning being they want the children to have male support too.


    I see no issue.



    I also think people are overlooking the fact that the mother may just want a motherly figure for the child. It is not necessarily about any risk of sexual assault.
    Well, where to begin on this. We should allow sexism to exist because it's hard to overcome? What a load of cobblers!

    The problem is that practicing this type of discrimination implicity implies that there is a risk of harm to the child from being cared for by a man, regardless of the actual thought process leading to the decision. It implies imcompetence at best and deviancy at worst and is exactly the same as turning down women for senior executive positions because the perceived need is for an alpha male or fatherly figure to lead the company and that just isn't a woman. It reinforces stereotypes.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sithius)
    Yet if I were to refuse to hire a female to look after my baby boy I am sure your position would change on the matter. Funny that.
    No, I genuinely couldn't care less. Your child, your prerogative. If you want to do that, do that. Another muppet making inferences that they can't. Funny that! :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If she only wants women looking after her children (I'm going to assume she also insisted on a female doctor checking her newborn over, and that her daughter has never been cared for by a male nurse), then so be it. I'm not going to argue that she needs to be sued for discrimination. I do however think rejecting male babysitters SOLELY on the grounds of their gender is flawed in all kinds of ways, and frankly stupid. But that's my call.

    (Original post by Antonia87)
    I couldnt because I dont know how race and paedophilia correlate.

    I could, however, say the following:

    Young black men are more likely to be perpetrators and victims of knife crime than young white men.

    There. That wasnt hard. People arent comfortable with these facts, but thats what they are. Facts.
    Yes, black men are more likely to commit knife crime than white men. Men are more likely to commit sex crimes than women.
    Men shouldn't be baby-sitters because they're more likely to abuse the child. Therefore black men shouldn't be allowed to buy a kitchen knife from Asda because they're more likely to stab someone with it.
    That's the obvious conclusion, no?

    I'm also surprised at how many people said they'd be happy for the father to see their little girl naked, even if they object to male babysitters. Around 10% of child sexual abuse cases are committed by the father. So you won't have someone with years of experience with children and glowing references looking after your child, but you're happy to leave your firstborn alone and naked with a man just because they're related, and you think that means it's safe? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If you think men can't be trusted with children because they're more likely to abuse them, then that includes your child's father - who is, after all, a man.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aliluvschoc)
    More high profile celebrities - the average person would more easily fit into the (obvious) stereotype I proposed.
    Yes, silly me, all those normal people with bodyguards... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubbles*de*Milo)
    No, I genuinely couldn't care less. Your child, your prerogative. If you want to do that, do that. Another muppet making inferences that they can't. Funny that! :rolleyes:
    Your reasoning is awful. You claim that as they are paying out of their own pocket, they can be discriminative. So a company can hire and fire at will can they, since they are 'paying out of their own pocket'? Of course they can't.

    Don't you study law? If so, I'm amazed.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    It's a little odd that a lot of people, especially women, want the classic gender roles to be removed so everyone has equal opportunities in the work place and society in general, yet things like this then happen. Also interesting that for some the problem will an unease about leaving their child with an unknown male...recent news stories have made it clear that paedophilia and child abuse are not male only activities. In fact I would say that as women can be more gentle and manipulative, it's less likely a child will admit to their parents that a women babysitter is abusing them, she may be better at convincing them it isn't abuse and nothing is wrong. "If any strange men ask you do get into their car" sort of thinking..what about strange women?

    In the end though it's her child, she's hiring, she can use what ever criteria she wants to choose her babysitter, if she was Sikh she might want a Sikh babysitter, if she was black she might want a black babysitter, some might not see such decisions as fair but it's the parents right to decide. Do you have to follow anti-discrimination laws like companies do when hiring if you're hiring a babysitter/Au pair?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 9, 2010
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.