Maleness and Teaching

[lawtonfogle]

In a recent thread, of much the same name, it has been argued that a certain group should be legally barred from teaching, due to posing higher than average risk to their students if they were to teach. The group in question had done nothing legally or morally questionable, much less something illegal. Yet, because any potential students where at a higher risk, some argued this is reason enough to legally ban this group from teaching.

So, I am wondering about another group, that of males. Males, being that males have a higher chance of being a child molester, and doing on average more damage when they do molest (when does a female molesting a child result in that child becoming pregnant with all the harm that entails for a child?), should legally not be allowed to teach children, even if they have done nothing legally or morally questionable. They place children at a higher risk. Especially considering that males who want to teach children are males who want to be around children. Now obviously there are multiple reasons for wanting to be around children, but one reason for some males, is to help them find their next victim.

I mean think about it, if there was a random male who wanted to spend almost 8 hours a day with your child 5 days a week, would you give him the benefit of the doubt and let him? No.

So, does anyone else think this is an extension of the reasoning used in the first paragraph of this post? Do people agree that we should not allow males to teach because they do place children at a higher risk (even if the risk is, on average, only slightly increased)? Finally, what punishment should there be for a male who does teach (say the school hired him), or who attempts to be hired as a teacher for children? Of course, this ban would only apply to middle school and below. Males can teach at high school and university, because children attending those are able to care for themselves enough to protect themselves from the risk of males.

 

[Penumbra]

In a recent thread, of much the same name, it has been argued that a certain group should be legally barred from teaching, due to posing higher than average risk to their students if they were to teach. The group in question had done nothing legally or morally questionable, much less something illegal. Yet, because any potential students where at a higher risk, some argued this is reason enough to legally ban this group from teaching.

So, I am wondering about another group, that of males. Males, being that males have a higher chance of being a child molester, and doing on average more damage when they do molest (when does a female molesting a child result in that child becoming pregnant with all the harm that entails for a child?), should legally not be allowed to teach children, even if they have done nothing legally or morally questionable. They place children at a higher risk. Especially considering that males who want to teach children are males who want to be around children. Now obviously there are multiple reasons for wanting to be around children, but one reason for some males, is to help them find their next victim.

No, gender shouldn't matter when hiring teachers.

I mean think about it, if there was a random male who wanted to spend almost 8 hours a day with your child 5 days a week, would you give him the benefit of the doubt and let him? No.

If I had a kid, and some random woman wanted to spend 40 hours per week with my kid, then that would be creepy too.

So, does anyone else think this is an extension of the reasoning used in the first paragraph of this post? Do people agree that we should not allow males to teach because they do place children at a higher risk (even if the risk is, on average, only slightly increased)? Finally, what punishment should there be for a male who does teach (say the school hired him), or who attempts to be hired as a teacher for children? Of course, this ban would only apply to middle school and below. Males can teach at high school and university, because children attending those are able to care for themselves enough to protect themselves from the risk of males.

No, I don't think this is an extension of the reasoning. Although I sympathize with your viewpoint, and in your thread I was not one of the ones that was strictly against pedophiles in teaching positions, I think this is a bit of a slippery slope argument. There is somewhat of a difference between someone who is a pedophile (defined as someone who has intense attraction for children to the point of distressing their lives), and someone who is merely a male.

-Lyn

 

[quatona]

In a recent thread, of much the same name, it has been argued that a certain group should be legally barred from teaching, due to posing higher than average risk to their students if they were to teach. The group in question had done nothing legally or morally questionable, much less something illegal. Yet, because any potential students where at a higher risk, some argued this is reason enough to legally ban this group from teaching.

So, I am wondering about another group, that of males. Males, being that males have a higher chance of being a child molester, and doing on average more damage when they do molest (when does a female molesting a child result in that child becoming pregnant with all the harm that entails for a child?), should legally not be allowed to teach children, even if they have done nothing legally or morally questionable. They place children at a higher risk. Especially considering that males who want to teach children are males who want to be around children. Now obviously there are multiple reasons for wanting to be around children, but one reason for some males, is to help them find their next victim.

I mean think about it, if there was a random male who wanted to spend almost 8 hours a day with your child 5 days a week, would you give him the benefit of the doubt and let him? No.

So, does anyone else think this is an extension of the reasoning used in the first paragraph of this post? Do people agree that we should not allow males to teach because they do place children at a higher risk (even if the risk is, on average, only slightly increased)? Finally, what punishment should there be for a male who does teach (say the school hired him), or who attempts to be hired as a teacher for children? Of course, this ban would only apply to middle school and below. Males can teach at high school and university, because children attending those are able to care for themselves enough to protect themselves from the risk of males.

While I generally agree with the sentiment that basing judgements on statistics is a tricky thing, I don´t think that slippery slopes are a good approach to deal with the problem. After all, if we´d expose children not only not to child molesters, not only not to pedophiles, not only not to males, but not to humans generally, the risk for the child to be molested would be reduced to zero.
Pretty much every attempt to protect society from offenders is based on statistical risks (the risk that someone who has already murdered someone will do it again, is higher than someone murdering someone for the first time, is also only a statistically higher, after all - actually, I don´t even know if it is higher).
This statistical approach may be regrettable, but instead of attacking it by eans of weak slippery slopes I would prefer you to outline an alternative, better approach that isn´t operating with statistical risks.

 

[Steezie]

Its hard enough for us to work with kids.

I used to work at a daycare center/afterschool program and I was CONSTANTLY getting sideways glances for being a male who worked with children. Parents were always whispering behind my back (sometimes within earshot of ME!) asking the directors if I had a record or was looking at any of the kids funny.

I finally got so tired of being treated like I was a pedophile who just hadnt been found out yet that I quit. I had done nothing wrong, I have no criminal record, and I did my job with considerable pride and enjoyment yet I was still treated like a criminal simply because I was a male working with children

 

[lawtonfogle]

While I generally agree with the sentiment that basing judgements on statistics is a tricky thing, I don´t think that slippery slopes are a good approach to deal with the problem. After all, if we´d expose children not only not to child molesters, not only not to pedophiles, not only not to males, but not to humans generally, the risk for the child to be molested would be reduced to zero.
Pretty much every attempt to protect society from offenders is based on statistical risks (the risk that someone who has already murdered someone will do it again, is higher than someone murdering someone for the first time, is also only a statistically higher, after all - actually, I don´t even know if it is higher).
This statistical approach may be regrettable, but instead of attacking it by eans of weak slippery slopes I would prefer you to outline an alternative, better approach that isn´t operating with statistical risks.

While I understand someone who would say the pedophile is a much higher risk than the male, while the male is very close to the average risk, thus saying the pedophile should be legally banned but males should not, my issue is the same as the 'cannot be proven', as I am actually unsure if this is true for a number of reasons, thus I cannot agree with such reasoning.

In other words, I am as much arguing that even if we agree to use the statistical approach, we cannot say a known pedophile who has never harmed a child is more dangerous than a male who may or may not be a pedophile or a child molester.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Its hard enough for us to work with kids.

I used to work at a daycare center/afterschool program and I was CONSTANTLY getting sideways glances for being a male who worked with children. Parents were always whispering behind my back (sometimes within earshot of ME!) asking the directors if I had a record or was looking at any of the kids funny.

I finally got so tired of being treated like I was a pedophile who just hadnt been found out yet that I quit. I had done nothing wrong, I have no criminal record, and I did my job with considerable pride and enjoyment yet I was still treated like a criminal simply because I was a male working with children

It makes me wonder how many of those parents would actually support this legislation?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Obviously anyone who wants to work with children has suspect motives. Therefore only people who hate children and don't want to be teachers should be permitted to teach.

 

[Saya_Aberial]

Generally, society trusts females with children much more than they trust males. Females are more maternal, which, I believe, is the biggest and most valid reason for preferring females to males. But beyond that, there's the issue of child molesters. It isn't unheard of for a teacher or daycare worker, who is male, to take advantage of his students' trust and vulnerability.

Does this possibility of having destructive tendencies warrant banning all men from teaching young children? Not in my opinion, but there appears to be a lot of discrimination anyway. According to Education Reporter, the highest percentage of male elementary school teachers was 18%, and in 2006 dropped down to 9%. Even when it was at it's high, there were still more than five times more female teachers then male teachers, and it's most likely not entirely because the males weren't interested.

Male Elementary School Teachers Harder to Find

 

[Verv]

Well, here is the thing...

There are millions of male teachers who do not molest children. Why should they be targeted and banned? That makes no sense.

It would cripple our work force.

The second argument simply comes down to the fact that the male teachers who would sleep with the students would more often than not be pedophiles, so if we simply bar pedophiles we fix the problem.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well, here is the thing...

There are millions of male teachers who do not molest children. Why should they be targeted and banned? That makes no sense.

It would cripple our work force.

The second argument simply comes down to the fact that the male teachers who would sleep with the students would more often than not be pedophiles, so if we simply bar pedophiles we fix the problem.

Per your own words, "more often than not". But banning males gets more of them. Banning pedophiles improves the problem, but banning males improves it even more. Plus, most pedophiles aren't open about it. Actually, when is the last time you have met a pedophile who had never committed a sex crime, who was open about being a pedophile? Maybe it is something about the society around where I live, but I don't ever remember that happening. So you aren't even going to be catching all the pedophiles, cause it is too hard to figure out who is and who is not. But males, almost all males can be figured out that they are males instantly on sight. Much easier, much more possible, much safer for the children.

 

[quatona]

While I understand someone who would say the pedophile is a much higher risk than the male, while the male is very close to the average risk, thus saying the pedophile should be legally banned but males should not, my issue is the same as the 'cannot be proven', as I am actually unsure if this is true for a number of reasons, thus I cannot agree with such reasoning.

In other words, I am as much arguing that even if we agree to use the statistical approach, we cannot say a known pedophile who has never harmed a child is more dangerous than a male who may or may not be a pedophile or a child molester.

This is the systemic issue with operating with statistical risks, isn´t it: They don´t allow a prediction in the individual case.
Thus, saying "I am willing to operate with statistical risks and probabilities, but only if they prove something about the individual person" seems to be a contradiction.
Then again, I´m not sure I have understood what your actual argument is.

 

[aandb]

It would be outright discrimination. I've had many male teachers who just love teaching, and don't want to hook up with fresh young high school girls.

In any case, most primary teachers are female, and by the time people start getting male teachers, they're usually in grade 4 or so, old enough to understand the signs if something is off about someone.

 

[Saya_Aberial]

It would be outright discrimination. I've had many male teachers who just love teaching, and don't want to hook up with fresh young high school girls.

In any case, most primary teachers are female, and by the time people start getting male teachers, they're usually in grade 4 or so, old enough to understand the signs if something is off about someone.

While it would be discrimination, who's to say that there aren't males out there who want to teach PreK-3 but weren't hired because they were male? If that was to happen, they probably wouldn't get much sympathy from the public anyway because they might be a pedophile and might have ulterior motives.

 

[Gilyon]

Exactly how much more likely are males to sexually abuse a child?

 

[aandb]

While it would be discrimination, who's to say that there aren't males out there who want to teach PreK-3 but weren't hired because they were male? If that was to happen, they probably wouldn't get much sympathy from the public anyway because they might be a pedophile and might have ulterior motives.

Personally, I think it's awful that people aren't allowed to do what they want because someone else has ruined it for them. I think it's right up there with not hiring a minority because they're more likely to steal, or whatever. (I'm not saying I believe that, just going off of a popular stereotype)

 

[Zebra1552]

Men working with children, as I've seen evidence of many, many times in my own life, can be very beneficial to the child. It allows the child a significant male role model apart from the father or any male relatives. Relatives are great, but once a kid hits adolescence, the family is much less appealing (esp. in America).

Furthermore, enacting such legislation to bar males from teaching is against the 14th Amendment. Goes right up there with barring homosexuals from marriage.

 

[lawtonfogle]

This is the systemic issue with operating with statistical risks, isn´t it: They don´t allow a prediction in the individual case.
Thus, saying "I am willing to operate with statistical risks and probabilities, but only if they prove something about the individual person" seems to be a contradiction.
Then again, I´m not sure I have understood what your actual argument is.

My argument is that they aren't arguing on actual statistical risk, but on the risk they think exist. For example, we have no clue how many pedophiles exist who never offend against a child once. Thus we have no ability to deduce the risk of some pedophile offending against a child at least once in their lifetime. Thus, we cannot make laws off of it.

 

[quatona]

My argument is that they aren't arguing on actual statistical risk, but on the risk they think exist. For example, we have no clue how many pedophiles exist who never offend against a child once. Thus we have no ability to deduce the risk of some pedophile offending against a child at least once in their lifetime. Thus, we cannot make laws off of it.

Now, finally, I understand your argument.
I think it is flawed, though (or, we are working from different ideas what a pedophile is).
We don´t need to know what percentage of pedophiles end up molesting childs in order to conclude a higher risk - we just need to know that it takes a pedophile to molest a child.
IOW: 100% of child molesters are pedophiles (maybe there are a few exceptions - people who do it for other reasons, but this seems to be a statistically neglectible group), thus pedophiles have a higher risk of molesting children (because non-pedophiles don´t do it).
Just like we don´t need to know how many women get pregant, we just need to know that all persons who get pregnant are women in order to constitute a higher risk for women to get pregnant than the average population.

 

[OllieFranz]

Assume about half of all child molesters are simply rapists who target children because they are vulnerable and available. (I suspect that this may actually be a very low estimate, but I do not have any figures) These are not pedophiles. Add to that, the possibility that you have already conceded that a large percentage of actual pedophiles are not a danger to children.

Targeting pedophiles catches and penalizes almost as many innocent people as the number of guilty persons the policy misses.

On the other hand targeting all men (on the same sort of principle that you used when speaking of pregnancy) will catch the great majority of child molesters, wether they be pedophiles or rapists. Win-win, right? Hence the question in the OP.

 

[jayem]

Exactly how much more likely are males to sexually abuse a child?

Don't know. But I think sexual abuse of children by males is reported much more frequently.

However, this raises an interesting question. I do remember reading that the infamous Mary Kay Letourneau (now married as Mary Kay Fualaau) would like to return to teaching. Assuming her teaching credentials are up to date, should this be allowed? (Would be in a private school.)