male child minder...would you use??

amus

notanewuser wrote: »

Could you please provide the statistics you are using to back up these assertions?

Google is your friend


There's plenty about from reputable sources, if you can't be bothered to find them yourself I'm not doing it got you.


Post them on here when you do please.

notanewuser

amus wrote: »

Google is your friend


There's plenty about from reputable sources, if you can't be bothered to find them yourself I'm not doing it got you.


Post them on here when you do please.

:rotfl:

I'm not doing your donkey work for you. If you make the claims you should back them up!!

amus

ViolaLass wrote: »

Perhaps, but you and they are assuming that it is likely to happen at all. I hope that poster is also considering the safety of letting their child ever cross the road or get in a car or go swimming or stay over at a friend's house or have a male teacher or or or...

I am assuming what is likely to happen?


Are you denying that it COULD happen? That is very different from assuming that it will happen.


Pointing out the statistical likelihood of something happening is not assuming that something is likely to happen. It is pointing out that there is a mathematical probability that one event is more likely to occur than another. For example, it is statistically likely that a child will contract chicken pox before the age of 10. That does not mean all children will. It is statistically less likely that a child in the UK will contract TB before the age of 10. However that is not to say NO children will.

amus

notanewuser wrote: »

:rotfl:

I'm not doing your donkey work for you. If you make the claims you should back them up!!

Sorry too much like hard work on my phone. Anybody who has any knowledge on the subject knows what the statistics are. You're clearly not one of them.


Or is it because you can't found that the statistics are exactly as I said and you don't want to post them because they back up exactly what I have said

notanewuser

amus wrote: »

Sorry too much like hard work on my phone. Anybody who has any knowledge on the subject knows what the statistics are. You're clearly not one of them.


Or is it because you can't found that the statistics are exactly as I said and you don't want to post them because they back up exactly what I have said

I'm also on my phone and haven't looked for stats to support either argument. A few other posters have asserted similar things without bothering to back it up. I'm not looking to prove you wrong - I'm interested in what the stats actually say.

amus

* have not can't. Unable to edit typos on my posts for some reason.

amus

notanewuser wrote: »

I'm also on my phone and haven't looked for stats to support either argument. A few other posters have asserted similar things without bothering to back it up. I'm not looking to prove you wrong - I'm interested in what the stats actually say.

Well if you're interested look them up. I assure you they're there. Sounds like you're expecting me to do your donkey work...

inkie

I really can't see why people object to Male midwives. The likelihood is that if you run into problems on labour ward the obstetrician on call is likely to be male, and so you can't say then I want a woman, as there ain't one around at that time.

I am all for positive role models and so, yes, I would employ a male CM. The school that I work alongside, out of the 5 teachers that work there, 3 of them are male (including the deputy head), as they want to give positive role models to the community there.

onlyroz

I think it's really odd to say that you'd rule out a male childminder because there's a miniscule chance that they might abuse your child. Would you say the same about male teachers, doctors, dentists, nurses, scout leaders, football coaches etc, who all could have unsupervised access to your children? I think anybody who holds these views is doing their child an immense disservice. Yes, most child abusers seem to be male, but it's just so wrong to tar all men with the same brush.

ViolaLass

amus wrote: »

I am assuming what is likely to happen?


Are you denying that it COULD happen? That is very different from assuming that it will happen.


Pointing out the statistical likelihood of something happening is not assuming that something is likely to happen. It is pointing out that there is a mathematical probability that one event is more likely to occur than another. For example, it is statistically likely that a child will contract chicken pox before the age of 10. That does not mean all children will. It is statistically less likely that a child in the UK will contract TB before the age of 10. However that is not to say NO children will.

Your child COULD also get hit by an asteroid. Are you going to stop them ever leaving the house?