Culturally-sanctioned child abuse

How would you feel if you were on a website devoted to fathers, and saw a man making the following comment on a discussion thread?

I’m a 45 year old father with a daughter (13) and son (15). We go swimming most weeks and we use the family change room, the showers are communal, where I make my daughter shower nude. We all use the same cubicle when changing but I make my daughter change first then make her leave so my son and I can get changed without my daughter seeing us nude. Should I show more dominance towards my daughter or is this enough to show my son that men are in charge?

I would hope that you would feel, as I would, appalled by such a story, and contact the people who ran the site in an effort to get this evil man tracked down, visited by the police, and her poor son allowed to shower as he wished in future, and to change in a cubicle on his own.

Last Thursday the party and I were attacked on the feminist website MumsNet http://www.mumsnet.com. In my customary manner I remained calm and posted links to our materials, and didn’t bother to read many of the hostile (but occasionally supportive) comments before the discussion thread was ‘pulled’.

The comment at the start of this piece – from an abusive father – never appeared on any website, but the day after the MumsNet attacks I was alerted by a contributor to the influential American website ‘A Voice for Men’ http://avoiceformen.com to a comment made on the MumsNet discussion thread, at 17:46:51 on Thursday:

I’m a 45 year old mother with a son (13) and daughter (15). We go swimming most weeks and we use the family change room, the showers are communal, where I make my son shower nude. We all use the same cubicle when changing but I make my son change first then make him leave so my daughter and I can get changed without my son seeing us nude. Should I show more dominance towards my son or is this enough to show my daughter that women are in charge?

The AVfM contributor called this an example of culturally-sanctioned child abuse, and I have to agree. I’ve emailed the CEO / Co-Founder of MumsNet, Justine Roberts Justine@mumsnet.com, asking her what action, if any, she’s taken, or plans to take, in respect to this matter. I shall post her response (if I receive one) here.

About Mike Buchanan

I'm a men's human rights advocate, writer, and publisher. My primary focus is leading the political party I launched in 2013, Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them). I still work actively on two campaigns I launched in early 2012, Campaign for Merit in Business and the Anti-Feminism League. In 2014 I launched The Alternative Sexism Project, aiming to raise public understanding that the sexism faced by men and boys has far more grievous consequences than the sexism faced by women and girls.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • I’d like to make clear that the child abuse is against both children – the boy and the girl. The idea of a woman committing sexual abuse against a child is seen as impossible. However, the NSPCC and Childline do not agree. When you asses the frankly sexual abusive and bullying conduct of the mother, both child are being abused as defined and accepted in UK law – the mother is a criminal twice over.

    NSPCC, in their work CaseNotes – Children talking to ChildLine about sexual abuse 2009 (Link below) – identify:

    1) at least 17% of child sexual abuse is carried out by women
    2) predominantly female sexual abusers target boys
    3) 30% of the children who contacted Childline did not give the identity or gender of the abuser

    That leaves the possibility of as many as 50% of child sexual absue incidents being perpetrated by women. The list of identified abusers included mothers, sisters, grandmothers, aunts and more, including female teachers. These are all British mothers, sisters, grandmothers etc., and it can’t be dismissed that they’re in the USA or somewhere far way. The rights of these children are being abused next door.

    In the same light Bernardos have embarked upon more detailed research into the growing known incidence of female juvenile sexual abusers, a group that’s been known about for decades, but quite literally not recognised to exist. BBC News Coverage March 2013 – http://tinyurl.com/c7vsurx

    The 17% Childline figure is for some shocking enough – what is most shocking is that the number of fathers and mothers found to sexually abuse is the same. Mother and fathers are equally likely to sexually abuse their own children. Lipservice has been given to the known issue that abuse is most likely to take place in the home – that an abuser is most likely to be known to the victim – and the false view has been maintained that it’s always abuse by men. That warped and improper view has left children at risk for decades.

    Findings, such as Childline’s, have been routinely dismiss by women’s groups, sexual assault prevention advocates, and groups dealing with rape victims. Childline’s findings published in 2009 built on earlier work from 2007 – Calls to ChildLine about sexual abuse – February 2007 (Link below), and Childline’s work builds on ongoing studies and findings which can be traced back to the 1950s and the Kinsey Studies in Human Sexuality. The Kinsey findings on incest and female adults has been routinely attacked since the 1970s.

    Academics and activist who have even raised and discussed such matters have been routinely attacked, demonised and abused – such as happened yet again at the University of Toronto in late 2012 when Warren Farrell was asked to speak by the Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) on the subject of men and boys (Transforming the Boys Crisis). Farrell has historically pointed out that a child being sexually abused by a parent in an incestuous manner may not be aware that it is abuse. In the same light any child who is being abused in the home sees the abuse of normal until it is identified as abuse and not normal or acceptable. Feminists in the USA insist that Farrell is prompting incest and rape of females, and promote such ideas and protests against him. (See YouTube footage of Farrell speaking at Toronto, and the student protests and claims – links below)

    There is this constant distorted ‘Threat Narrative’ being presented which claims women are 100% safe and men 100% dangerous to children, and even children are being indoctrinated in this. That is significant as 30% of children reporting sexual abuse don’t identify their abusers. If the narrative keeps pushing the view that women are 100% safe, children do find it incredibly difficult to go against such adult taught views and claims – the children fear being called called lairs, told they are making it up, and being shamed and blamed for the abuse.

    The very idea of a mother encouraging her daughter to sexually abuse her brother and by extension all men is not some mad 1970’s bra burner feminist madness – it is being reported in 2013 on Mumsnet. The mum who says she is 45 may have gotten her ideas from the 1970’s, but are such behaviours and views even remotely acceptable in 2013? The law says No! It’s Child Abuse.

    Mumsnet have not even bother to raise of discuss the issue of female sexual abuse of children, and on-line talking heads such as Hugo Schwyzer (The Male feminist) has gone so far as to dismiss the matter insisting that the Childline report on Sexual Assault is conflated and only about physical absue. Dr Schwyzer has been asked very publicly to address his denial and apologise but of course has not availed of any such opportunity.

    The dogma of denying any negative findings which show women in a negative light is so endemic that Dr (Prof) Hugo Schwyzer didn’t even need to read the evidence before denying the reality found by the NSPCC and Childline. He even said so – and as a Professor of Gender Studies he is a shining example of how not to act in academia. His conduct is linked to a great many supposed academics teaching Gender Studies who also prevalently do not need to read or deal with reality, just their own opinions.

    It is alarming that Mumsnet have indicated they removed the post where a mother is publicly identifying abusing her two children becasue comments were attacking men and men’s groups. As a person who has managed websites and on-line forums and having co-ordinated such activity in line with Child Protection, Police and even just what is seen as socially and morally acceptable, the following should have occurred:

    1) The post identifying child abuse should have been removed to protect the children from them being identified and subjected to public identification. The children’s welfare should have been the primary focus, and yet it was not.
    2) The content should have been provided to the relevant agencies to deal with such sexual abuse. In the UK that would be CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre) – in the USA the FBI – in Canada Child Protective Services. These groups have the expertise to locate the perpetrator and ensure that the children receive the correct support. All can be contacted via the net and relevant information passed on.

    That has not occurred.

    After that it would be appropriate to review and strengthen all polices, practices and procedures on child abuse and ensure that all service users are aware of how to access relevant information on when, where, and how to report any concerns and to protect children. Mumsnet have no such information on their site.

    Mumsnet has a great deal to explain – not least why they see comments which are negative and about men the reason to pull a full thread, and yet the headline where a mother states she is sexually abusing two children is just ignored.

    Mumsnet as a registered UK company is obliged to comply with UK law – and should be acting under the obligations of the Children’s Act for the protection of children as any reasonable group, business or even private individual would. I would welcome Mumsnet publicly condemning the sexual abuse of children which they published with confirmation that the issue has been reported to the correct authorities, and secondly for a public undertaking from Mumsnet that they stand 100% against all forms of child sexual abuse and child abuse on any grounds, and the sex of the child is not an excuse.

    Of course, in future any person who identifies child abuse and places children at risk should be acted upon immediately for the welfare of THE CHILD!

    It is of concern that given the history and patterns, it is not clear that such proactive protection of ALL children could reasonably be expected from Mumsnet Ltd.

    Links:
    a) Children talking to ChildLine about sexual abuse 2009 – http://tinyurl.com/btfoqge
    b) Calls to ChildLine about sexual abuse – February 2007 – http://tinyurl.com/capjx5w
    c) Warren Farrell Speaks in Toronto: Transforming the Boys Crisis – http://youtu.be/P6w1S8yrFz4
    d) Warren Farrell protest at the University of Toronto – Full version – http://youtu.be/iARHCxAMAO0

  • Pingback: Culturally sanctioned child abuse (cont’d.) |()

  • Pingback: Culturally-sanctioned child abuse (cont’d.) | Fighting Feminism()