Male babysitters -- yes or no?

[Erica in PA]

Absolutely not--to both questions.

 

Q1: Because I had a background as a clinical social worker, I learned way too much prior to children to ever let a male or even a teenager babysit. My belief was to use only adult women as babysitters---which meant that I didn't go out much--until my children were old enough to explain very clearly to me what happened. After they were older (like elementary age), I always asked them two questions when I came home: "Did the babysitter have the same rules as Mommy and Daddy?" And "Were you comfortable with the babysitter?" (The questions were specifically designed to elicit any sexual abuse that may have happened. "Rules" like you can stay up later if you do x,y,z are often present in sexual abuse. And a child may not know that anything "wrong" happened, but the word "uncomfortable" tends to elicit the discomfort that a child feels in an abuse situation even if they don't really understand it. They also tend to get around any admonition to not tell mom and dad something because you're not directly asking about the event in q.1. Additionally, these questions don't alarm kids or raise suspicians. I often got "different rules' like "She let us stay up 15 min. later" )

 

The rate of adult women, particularly those in married relationships, sexually abusing prepubescent children is almost nil. (You can read about this right now in the news because of abberation of the case where the mother of her friend is accused of sexually abusing and murdering a young girl. Experts are giving statistics as to just how rare this is). The rates of teen sexual abuse of children is significant---and this includes female teens. This is because the vast majority of teen sexual abuse is not pedophile in nature--it is experimental--learning from "safer" subjects, rather than getting sexual stimulation from young children as opposed to peers. 20% of all sexual abuse in churches is by teens, for instance. Again, this includes teenaged girls and it includes "nice" teengaged girls. Now if you combine the teenaged part with the male part, then you are taking a significant sta****tical risk. You cannot know who and who will not do this. It just isn't possible. So I didn't take the risk. When my kids were older, I did use older teenaged babysitters, as I said. I also used younger teens, both boys and girls, as mother's helpers when I was home and supervising. So I played the odds.

 

Q.2 Would I let my boys babysit in private situations? Absolutely not. Two reasons: 1) I don't want to put them into a position where they might be falsely accused or misinterpreted and 2) I don't want to put them in a place where they might be tempted. Do I trust my boys? Absolutely. But I cannot know what their secret temptations might be. Too many "nice" kids do experiment on children. I do let them babysit in group settings, like at church, where there are other babysitters present.

 

:iagree:

[WagsWife]

We only used a teen babysitter a handful of times, and it was a girl whose family we were very close with. We knew this girl very well, and our girls adored her. She would come over and PLAY with them. She would bring games to play, play hide n seek with them, take them in the back yard for flashlight tag...all kinds of things.

 

Before we met this family, and after they moved, if we needed a babysitter we swapped with other parents we knew and trusted. We just did not get a lot of "freedom" so to speak, until our oldest was legally allowed to babysit her sisters.

 

From a pretty early age, we knew that there were very few teens that we would trust more than our own daughter to take care of them. Our daughter knows our rules, knows the consequences if those rules are broken...and she is just a really responsible, good girl.

 

Our DD babysits for others some, but we have drilled it into her that her priority are the kids she is watching. When watching other peoples children, our rule for her is that she is not to be watching tv-unless it is something the kids want (and are allowed to watch), she has to be in the same room with them engaging them, and she is not to have friends over...or talk on the phone. We use our friends daughter as an example of what kind of sitter she should be.

[ciyates]

As a mother who complete trust her son and husband I would have to say no to having a male babysitter or having one of them watching someone (male or female) without me being there.

[Jennifer in NH]

I'll chime in:

 

NO and NO. I was molested as a young girl and it was not done by a female. My Mother was molested by her own brother. My Mother babysits our children maybe once a year and the same is ture of my MIL. I would let my kids alone with their grandfather and that is it. I could care less whose feelings get hurt by excluding the entire male sex, my kids will not go through what I went through. Not if I can help it! My DH feels the same way. I think I would be irresponsible to put my children in potential danger.

 

as for potential mates for my daughter...that is a totallly different kettle of fish. as a young one being babysat, she has no control over the situation. as a young lady looking for a husband, she has control and is much older.

 

and as for why my sons won't babysit...well, although as their mom I sure don't think they are pedifiles (they are 6 and 3 right now)...I wouldn't want them accused of anything.

[OnTheBrink]

Presumably any young woman that would date him would be 18+ and spend several years getting to know his character before marrying him. A young child does not have that ability.

 

I perfectly understand not wanting a male babysitter. As a young teen, I thought it was strange that people didn't hire boys very often. However, when I was older, I found out that 2 of the 3 boys I knew who babysat had molested the kids!

 

I do not in any way think that all boys/men are abusers, but the statistics are scary enough that I personally wouldn't take the risk, unless it were someone I had know personally for their whole life (like my best friend's younger brother).

 

This makes no sense to me. If you have years to get to know the character of a young man who's interested in marrying your daughter, why in the world would you not get to know the character of someone who'd be watching your children? By the same token, the stats say more boys molest than girls, wouldn't the same hold true that more men abuse women? We all know of women who married men who appeared to have excellent character, only to find they are abusers, too.

 

I'm having a very hard time getting this gender bias, and, as the mother of an adult son who took babysitting classes and has babysat his sister as well as other females in the past, I find the bias offensive. Don't be naive (I'm speaking generally here, not to you specifically); males may molest more (statistically), but I guarantee you, female babysitters can be just as abusive in other ways. How many news shows have shown abusive baby sitters, found out only by nanny cams? Most of those are women. When a child is killed by a sitter, more times that not, it's a female sitter. The issue shouldn't be gender, it should be character. To determine a good babysitter by gender only is foolish.

[swellmomma]

I do not allow any teen male or female babysit my kids. I have never actually hired a sitter, but no I likely would not hire a teen boy. Not because he is a male, but because he is a teen. Ds10 would likely really benefit in someways from a male sitter, HOWEVER, given the nature of his special needs and those of my dd9, I am not comfortable with anyone who is not an adult babysitting. Even then I have never had someone watch all 4 of them because it is too much for even 2 adults to deal with them, only the grandparents and the two sets of aunts/uncles watch them.

 

That said, the teen/young adult boy next door will take Austin and play with him in his backyard so I can have a mini break from him. I am home however, and they are in the yard. the fence is under 4' high so I can see them at all times. He is a good boy but I would not trust him to watch the kids even If I was only leaving for 5 minutes to pick up milk.

[Nakia]

We do not hire babysitters at all. The rare times that I need childcare, we ask my mother or best friend.

[Nestof3]

I'll chime in:

 

NO and NO. I was molested as a young girl and it was not done by a female. My Mother was molested by her own brother. My Mother babysits our children maybe once a year and the same is ture of my MIL. I would let my kids alone with their grandfather and that is it. I could care less whose feelings get hurt by excluding the entire male sex, my kids will not go through what I went through. Not if I can help it! My DH feels the same way. I think I would be irresponsible to put my children in potential danger.

 

as for potential mates for my daughter...that is a totallly different kettle of fish. as a young one being babysat, she has no control over the situation. as a young lady looking for a husband, she has control and is much older.

 

and as for why my sons won't babysit...well, although as their mom I sure don't think they are pedifiles (they are 6 and 3 right now)...I wouldn't want them accused of anything.

 

Yes, and my point is that these molestations do not stop you from having sons AND daughters or marrying a man. Your husband and your own sons could molest your daughter(s) just as a teenage boy babysitting. There is just as much potential danger just by being male.

 

I just think it comes down to the character of people more than the gender.

[Blessedfamily]

The only reason the statistics are so high on boys is because the ones done by the girls are not reported as much. Same thing with rape and such. You just don't here about it as much, because even though it still goes on more than most think, most boys just don't say anything. In fear they look weak that a girl did something to them. Well I better get back on the topic and really stop reading this thread it is really making me upset that so many judge by gender. It is very sad.

 

I agree that cases of girls comitting these acts go unreported. But the fact is there are even more cases where males comitt these acts that go unreported too. That would still put males way ahead.

 

I don't use sitters (except my mother), so I can't answer the question.

[AndyJoy]

This makes no sense to me. If you have years to get to know the character of a young man who's interested in marrying your daughter, why in the world would you not get to know the character of someone who'd be watching your children? By the same token, the stats say more boys molest than girls, wouldn't the same hold true that more men abuse women? We all know of women who married men who appeared to have excellent character, only to find they are abusers, too.

 

I'm having a very hard time getting this gender bias, and, as the mother of an adult son who took babysitting classes and has babysat his sister as well as other females in the past, I find the bias offensive. Don't be naive (I'm speaking generally here, not to you specifically); males may molest more (statistically), but I guarantee you, female babysitters can be just as abusive in other ways. How many news shows have shown abusive baby sitters, found out only by nanny cams? Most of those are women. When a child is killed by a sitter, more times that not, it's a female sitter. The issue shouldn't be gender, it should be character. To determine a good babysitter by gender only is foolish.

 

My point was that an adult woman dating a man is making her own choices, and presumably is in a better position to make an informed decision. Plus, she is more capable of stopping a bad situation, informing the proper authorities, sensing when something is wrong, etc. A child may not be able to express when they have been abused or may be more likely to not tell. I was in no way implying that a person would not try to get to know the character of the person they chose to babysit. Maybe this isn't true for many people, but most people I've known who hire babysitters know the person only casually, through church, or through the recommendation of a friend. I explained that I myself would hire my best friend's 16-year-old brother as I know his character well since I've known him well since he was 3.

 

I don't think anyone said that girls are "good" babysitters and boys are "bad." What they are pointing out is that it's like a flowchart to eliminate risk of sexual abuse. As much as we hate it, boys are more likely to sexually abuse kids. Thus, if you start with a girl, the risk drops dramatically. Then, you filter through the girls and eliminate those with other problems until you find the babysitter who you think will be best. It may seem unfair to boys, but I personally would not take a risk with my kids just to make males in general feel better. Plus, it's not like we're running around telling boys why we don't ask them to babysit. I would imagine most boys have other forms of income and aren't sitting around waiting for babysitting calls.

[Danestress]

Numbers do not lie. If, statistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of babysitters who molest children are male...well, my son may be the exception to that rule but how do you prove that to someone? You can't. Better to be safe than sorry.

 

 

 

 

Your son is *not* an exception. The vast majority of men and boys are not in anyway a danger to a child. The vast majority are protective of children and perfectly able to care for them.

 

Which does not change the fact that if your child were to be molested, it would most likely be a male. And that's reason enough to stick with female sitters if that's what you are comfortable with - no argument there.

[dirty ethel rackham]

If, statistically speaking, the overwhelming majority of babysitters who molest children are male...well, my son may be the exception to that rule but how do you prove that to someone? You can't.

 

But it does not follow to say that a majority of male babysitters are molesters. On either side, the numbers are fairly low. I am less trusting of adults who have a strong interest in my children than I am of teen babysitters, male or female. I am actually less trusting of family members, not for sexual abuse, but more for physical or emotional abuse. They parented by spanking first and asking questions later. Also, they constantly criticised my parenting in front of my kids and tried to switch loyalties.

 

One of the best babysitters we had was a teen boy. He played with my boys, listened to their stories, talked to them, read to them, enforced bedtime routines, etc. My kids just saw him as a big playmate. Granted, we didn't leave our kids often and he usually watched them when we were at a neighborhood party. I am very careful about babysitters and do not leave very young children with sitters. If they cannot speak up for themselves, they can't be left.

 

I think it is terribly sad that one gender is completely shut out of childcare duties, something that will help them become good parents in the future. I doubt my boys will do any babysitting, because they just wouldn't be good at it. Book coma patients are not good at supervising:).

[Katrina]

No way no how. I completely agree that it's unfair for the millions of men who are not sexual preditors. I think that there are many men who would rather cut their right hand off before hurting a child. However, as a child my sisters and I had an *unpleasant* experience with a male babysitter (a son of my mom's best friend), and I don't care how well I know a family or if I'd trust them with my life...I'm not trusting them with my kids.

 

For what it's worth, I can pretty much count on one hand how many times I've left my kids with female teen sitters as well, so maybe I'm just overly paraniod. We used to do babysitting swaps with other friends though, and that seemed to work out well. I'm just glad my dd is 13 and can watch her younger brother now. :lol:

[Heather in Neverland]

But it does not follow to say that a majority of male babysitters are molesters. .

 

But that's not what I said or implied.

 

I said: The majority of babsitters who molest children are male= true

You said:The majority of male babysitters molest children= not true

 

Do I think my son would molest a child? Of course not. But can I GUARANTEE it? No. Do I ever even want him in that position to either do that or be accused of it? No. That's why I said better safe than sorry. And for me, SAFE means no teens boys or girls for babysitters and we only use close family members or my best friend (which still doesn't guarantee anything but limits the risk).

[Peek a Boo]

I'mnot quite an "absolutely" not, but these are some VERY valid points:

 

 

 

My belief was to use only adult women as babysitters---....-until my children were old enough to explain very clearly to me what happened.

 

The rates of teen sexual abuse of children is significant---and this includes female teens. This is because

the vast majority of teen sexual abuse is not pedophile in nature--it is experimental--learning from "safer" subjects, rather than getting sexual stimulation from young children as opposed to peers. ....

Again, this includes teenaged girls and it includes "nice" teengaged girls. ......When my kids were older, I did use older teenaged babysitters, as I said.

 

Q.2 Would I let my boys babysit in private situations? Absolutely not. Two reasons:

 

1) I don't want to put them into a position where they might be falsely accused or misinterpreted and

 

2) I don't want to put them in a place where they might be tempted.

Do I trust my boys? Absolutely. But I cannot know what their secret temptations might be. Too many "nice" kids do experiment on children. I do let them babysit in group settings, like at church, where there are other babysitters present.

 

I can think of ONE older male teen that i would trust to watch my kiddos, but I would still ask an adult woman instead *to protect that older male teen too.*

 

gossip is a very detrimental thing, and I would not want to put good kids in that risk, esp w/ the statistics they are up against.

 

I guess this is kinda like "close communion" lol!- keep them out until they are "ready" because we love them. :)

[Erica in PA]

 

I don't think anyone said that girls are "good" babysitters and boys are "bad." What they are pointing out is that it's like a flowchart to eliminate risk of sexual abuse. As much as we hate it, boys are more likely to sexually abuse kids. Thus, if you start with a girl, the risk drops dramatically. Then, you filter through the girls and eliminate those with other problems until you find the babysitter who you think will be best. It may seem unfair to boys, but I personally would not take a risk with my kids just to make males in general feel better.

 

:iagree: Well said! I agree totally!

[Audrey]

Yes, my 13yo son babysits regularly. It is at home. He babysits younger boys.

I would not like to be prejudiced against all boys just because the few bad cases out there are usually male. However, I would always just trust my gut feeling about any particular person, male or female.

 

 

:iagree: Gender isn't an issue for me, but I always listen to my instincts on people who are going to be alone with my child.

[Erica in PA]

.

 

I'm having a very hard time getting this gender bias, and, as the mother of an adult son who took babysitting classes and has babysat his sister as well as other females in the past, I find the bias offensive. Don't be naive (I'm speaking generally here, not to you specifically); males may molest more (statistically), but I guarantee you, female babysitters can be just as abusive in other ways. How many news shows have shown abusive baby sitters, found out only by nanny cams? Most of those are women. When a child is killed by a sitter, more times that not, it's a female sitter. The issue shouldn't be gender, it should be character. To determine a good babysitter by gender only is foolish.

 

Perhaps if you personally knew of specific circumstances where a boy who appeared in every possible way to have wonderful character molested a child while babysitting, as I do, perhaps you would understand why I am willing to risk appearing discriminatory to reduce that risk for my children. You cannot possibly know whether or not someone will have a hidden temptation in that area, no matter how moral they appear to be, even if you've known the person for years. And the fact is that many more boys and men molest children than girls and women. If the statistics were reversed, and it were women who abused children more often, then I wouldn't allow female babysitters, or allow my dd to babysit. It's not about targeting men, to me, it's about reducing the odds.

[Sharon H in IL]

My boyfriend in college told me how he molested a baby girl when he was babysitting her years before.

 

He was a 'nice' boy from a stable home. He was just curious about her private parts and explored digitally.

 

He felt awful about it. I realized that abuse isn't always about pedophilia, it's sometimes just experimentation. But it's always about taking advantage of another's integrity.

 

That's when I knew I would never trust even the best male teenager as a babysitter. Because sexual curiosity is always present, and doesn't give off the same bad vibe that you get from kids who abuse from other motivations.

 

That said, I eventually did hire a young male teenager to sit with my 3yo son. Because I needed a break. So much for my ideals. :glare:

[OnTheBrink]

Perhaps if you personally knew of specific circumstances where a boy who appeared in every possible way to have wonderful character molested a child while babysitting, as I do, perhaps you would understand why I am willing to risk appearing discriminatory to reduce that risk for my children. You cannot possibly know whether or not someone will have a hidden temptation in that area, no matter how moral they appear to be, even if you've known the person for years. And the fact is that many more boys and men molest children than girls and women. If the statistics were reversed, and it were women who abused children more often, then I wouldn't allow female babysitters, or allow my dd to babysit. It's not about targeting men, to me, it's about reducing the odds.

 

I don't understand the logic of assuming that every male is a potential molester. Yes, I've been abused as a child and as an adult, sexually, emotionally, physically. If I looked with distrust at the gender of the people who abused me, I'd trust NO ONE EVER. I can't imagine living like that. Naturally, I wouldn't put my child in a situation where there was a worry they'd be hurt, but in my experience, abuse isn't confined to one gender.

[specialmama]

Erica did say it quite clearly:

It's not about targeting men, to me, it's about reducing the odds.

[Laurie4b]

What I shared in the post about the statistics doesn't mean "all men are to be suspected as child molesters" or "most men are child molesters" or "teenaged boys who enjoy young children and are good with them are child molesters and to be distrusted."

 

As I stated in my first post, you cannot tell who is and who isn't a child molester no matter how well you know them--that's why many people play the statistical odds. If you think you can, you are fooling yourself. I have myself heard the stories (directly) of grown women (more than one) who felt very guilty because as teenaged girls they molested children whom they were babysitting. They were well known to the parents, they came from good families, etc. You cannot tell. There is no way to say, "Well this girl is lovely, I've known her parents all my life and since she's in a Bible study I lead too, I can trust her with my kids." (Well, you can say it, but you would be describing one of the women I knew. ) So you actually can't go on a case-by-case basis and choose who to trust. I understand that this can sound really radical if you've never been in a position to see and hear about sexual abuse by sitters in person--from either former perpetrators or current or former victims.

 

There may be some red flags but not always. That's why you so often read that people are shocked when a beloved coach, clergy member, YMCA director, etc. is found to have abused children. People who knew them well didn't suspect. Vigilent mothers were fooled.

 

So if there is no reliable way to evaluate who to trust, many people, myself included, play the statistical odds and choose someone of the lowest risk category demographically if we use sitters at all. Because of what I knew, I very rarely left my kids with anyone, including married women with kids (though that is statistically a very safe demographic group) until they were old enough to understand what was going on and to clearly relate what had happened. I sacrificed and stayed home to protect them.

 

My practice as a clinical social worker was in children's mental health and included children who had been sexually abused. The effects of being molested are too devastating, imo, to risk it, and the impact on the children outweighs the injustice of making choices based on statistical odds. For me, that meant no teens of either gender and no males of any age. If sexual abuse were as rare as a shark attack or a lightening strike, it would be a different story, and maybe (to me) worth the risk. But it is, unfortunately, not rare.

 

So to sum up:

Sexual abuse is fairly common, not rare.

It usually is someone known to the family and trusted by the family who abuses, not a stranger.

If sexual molestation happens, the consequences to the child can be devastating and life-changing

It's naive to think that you can evaluate who would be a potential molester

It's very uncomfortable to take in all these facts

 

Married women with children acting alone very rarely sexually abuse prepubescent children (You will have some cases where they act in concert with an adult male they are in a relationship with and adult women do sexually abuse adolescents.)

 

Given these facts, imo, it's sensible to either not have a sitter, or to rule out the groups statistically most likely to sexually abuse and to use the group who statistically rarely sexually abuse children.

 

I understand the point about people feeling sad about the injustice to males or even to teens by moms making choices based on statistics. However, my sadness is for the kids who are devastated by sexual abuse by sitters and is for loving parents who are devastated as well when they realize too late that they were naive. (Imagine trying to comfort a parent who had been fooled and felt that she failed her child. I've had that experience. ) I figure that a good guy can understand that it is not him personally who is being distrusted, and can be supportive of these kinds of choices because he, too, wants to make sure that children are safe. He may look like a good guy and actually be a good guy, but other guys who look like good guys are not, and moms have no way to tell the difference from the outside.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Laurie4b
grammar

[specialmama]

The effects of being molested are too devastating, imo, to risk it, and the impact on the children outweighs the injustice of making choices based on statistical odds.

 

 

Why oh WHY is there no *standing ovation* smilie? That was just so well put, Laurie. Thank you! You took a gut feeling of mine (and many I'm sure) and turned it into something intellegent and coherent.

[Peek a Boo]

What I shared in the post about the statistics doesn't mean "all men are to be suspected as child molesters" or "most men are child molesters" or "teenaged boys who enjoy young children and are good with them are child molesters and to be distrusted."

 

As I stated in my first post, you cannot tell who is and who isn't a child molester no matter how well you know them--that's why many people play the statistical odds. If you think you can, you are fooling yourself. .......

 

There may be some red flags but not always. That's why you so often read that people are shocked when a beloved coach, clergy member, YMCA director, etc. is found to have abused children. People who knew them well didn't suspect. Vigilant mothers were fooled.

 

So if there is no reliable way to evaluate who to trust, many people, myself included, play the statistical odds and choose someone of the lowest risk category demographically if we use sitters at all. Because of what I knew, I very rarely left my kids with anyone, including married women with kids (though that is statistically a very safe demographic group) until they were old enough to understand what was going on and to clearly relate what had happened. I sacrificed and stayed home to protect them.

 

....The effects of being molested are too devastating, imo, to risk it, and the impact on the children outweighs the injustice of making choices based on statistical odds...... If sexual abuse were as rare as a shark attack or a lightening strike, it would be a different story, and maybe (to me) worth the risk. But it is, unfortunately, not rare.

 

So to sum up:

Sexual abuse is fairly common, not rare.

It usually is someone known to the family and trusted by the family who abuses, not a stranger.

If sexual molestation happens, the consequences to the child can be devastating and life-changing

It's naive to think that you can evaluate who would be a potential molester

It's very uncomfortable to take in all these facts

 

Married women with children acting alone very rarely sexually abuse prepubescent children (You will have some cases where they act in concert with an adult male they are in a relationship with and adult women do sexually abuse adolescents.)

 

Given these facts, imo, it's sensible to either not have a sitter, or to rule out the groups statistically most likely to sexually abuse and to use the group who statistically rarely sexually abuse children.

 

I understand the point about people feeling sad about the injustice to males or even to teens by moms making choices based on statistics. However, my sadness is for the kids who are devastated by sexual abuse by sitters and is for loving parents who are devastated as well when they realize too late that they were naive. ....I figure that good guys can understand that it is not them personally who is being distrusted, and can be supportive of these kinds of choices because they, too, want to make sure that children are safe. They may look like a good guy and actually be a good guy, but other guys who look like good guys are not, and moms have no way to tell the difference from the outside.

 

:iagree:

 

 

Word.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't understand the logic of assuming that every male is a potential molester. Yes, I've been abused as a child and as an adult, sexually, emotionally, physically. If I looked with distrust at the gender of the people who abused me, I'd trust NO ONE EVER. I can't imagine living like that. Naturally, I wouldn't put my child in a situation where there was a worry they'd be hurt, but in my experience, abuse isn't confined to one gender.

 

something else to consider:

 

If my son was watching some kids that ended up being abused by another sitter, HE would be investigated until they figured out where the abuse was coming from. Because of the statistics, they would grill. him. heavily.

 

I don't mind including men and boys in helpful roles in childcare [and LOVE to see them modeling that!], but to protect them from false accusations I always make sure we are following the Scouting "two deep" leadership rule.

[Haiku]

I had male babysitters when I was young and I loved them. They were much more fun than the female babysitters, who just talked on the phone, did their nails, and watched tv. (This was in the day before babysitters were supposed to be child development specialists that provided all kinds of enriching activities and were just expected to keep the kids from burning the house down.)

 

I have used male babysitters with my kids.

 

ETA: I also don't leave my little kids with teenaged babysitters.

 

Tara

Edited April 22, 2009 by TaraTheLiberator