The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australians in denial about child sexual abuse > Comments

Australians in denial about child sexual abuse : Comments

By Barbara Biggs, published 21/9/2009

The media portrays child abuse cases as isolated incidents involving perpetrators who are fundamentally different to you and me.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
ROSCOP.I'm with you in as far as what you say about Barbara Bigot and her cronies being keen to see the mothers word being taken by the family court in all cases. However what TPP says," every damaged child is evidence of a failure at all levels of government and society within this country " is largely true.
In my own case it was the mother/female who abused and neglected my daughter, it was the family court judges/male who forced her to stay there for 3 years, it was the man hating social worker/female who refused to listen to the allegations of abuse and neglect, and it was the police/male who just drove off and left my daughter alone. All these people together conspired to leave my daughter in the parlous state she was when i was eventually given custody. They were all in the position of being able to do something, they knew what was going on, but they did nothing.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Saturday, 26 September 2009 4:29:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TPP:"But you make no distinction between mother vs female."

I'm happy to, if it makes you feel better, but it's pretty meaningless in the context. The reason for making the distinction between "father" and "male" is that males who are the biological fathers of children are much less likely to harm those particular kids (possibly all kids, I've not seen a study that examines that), but certainly their own.

On the face of it, it seems the biggest single predictive factor for child abuse is a single-mother household, especially one in which the children have little contact with their father, yet the rhetoric from the child-protection industry, including self-servers like Barbara Biggs, is that children should be "given" to their mothers as best practise.

Would you like to take a guess at how many people in the child-protection racket DON"T identify themselves as feminists?

As has so often been the case, this pernicious doctrine creates bad outcomes because it seeks to always paint women as good and men as bad. When the real world doesn't agree with that stance, "that's not Feminism's problem" as SJF said.

While striving to improve the world one finds oneself in is natural and admirable, it is stupidly dysfunctional not to look at what impact those changes will have and even more so to try to prevent others from doing so.

"Father as abuser" fits neatly into a low-brow feminist polemic, which is fine, except that the polemic became entrenched in family law, leading to some horrible miscarriages, such as the one described by eyeinthesky and my own case. In my case it was purely and simply my gender that was enough for a magistrate to say "we cannot take the chance" that the accusation I shouted at my ex may be proven. Huh?
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 27 September 2009 5:38:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TPP:"Every damaged child is evidence of a failure at all levels of government and society within this country."

Ros:”What utter rubbish. How can outsiders, if they have no concrete evidence of there being anything wrong, be responsible for what goes on inside the family home? Put CCTV in all homes and have the lesbians at the local DVCS monitor? Take the mother's word in all cases? I am sure that's what Barbara Biggs & co would be very keen to see the Family Court do.”

Oops…Roscop. I should learn to be clearer. I foster kids so when I am talking about damaged children I am generally talking about the children already in the system and how this failure is about government and society. But yes – CCTV in foster homes would be a start. I told DoCS to put a webcam in my playroom so they can see the kids. Mostly they find me humorous.

You are preaching to the converted about mums, I have seen what mums do and what damage is done by them doing nothing. But it is equal with the dads in my experience. Hardly gives me a warm and tingly feeling inside but in the battle of the sexes I personally can’t point at one and say they win in the child abuse sweepstake.

Thanks for the explanation Anti. But you are doing the same thing – trying to portray mothers as bad instead of fathers. If this picking sides has not worked for the children then another approach is needed? I am at a loss to understand how your magistrates and courts operate. I’m guessing they read studies etc and the comment about “not taking a chance” was about the stats they look at?

And I thought court would be about both sides presenting their case and a judge considering the individuals in front of them on their own merits. Probably terribly naive of me aye.

Given what goes on in these threads the Wiki definition didn’t make it clear what feminist means in this country.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Sunday, 27 September 2009 11:42:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TPP. And i thought court would be about both sides presenting their case and a judge considering the individuals in front of them on their own merits.
If only that were true. In my own case the ex had no one who would give her a character reference, she was proven to have mental and alcohol abuse problems, and had been proven many times to be abusing and neglecting our daughter in clear breach of the law and the family court orders placed on her, and in 3 years she didn't turn up to a single court hearing.I had a mountain of evidence of abuse and neglect from individuals, police reports and even Families SA crisis care workers who had to get the police to remove the drunken ex from the hotel. I also had several character references including from one woman who is a JP, sherriffs officer and former acting magistrate. I also never missed a single court hearing in 3 years, and have no criminal record. Please be honest, who would you award custody of the child to. Yet for 3 years they did nothing and it was eventually left to my daughter to SHAME them into doing something. The real cause of it was the man hating social worker on my case, who because of a bad relationship uses her position to make ALL men suffer for it, in my case very much at the expense of my daughters welfare. Her behaviour was well known both in her own office and in the wider community. Luckily eventually i was able to get the human services minister to have her removed from my case otherwise who knows where my daughter would be now.
Without being disrespectful, if you believe judges make decisions on merit, then you are indeed terribly naive. I was discriminated against solely because i was a male/father, and my daughters life was almost destroyed because of it.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Sunday, 27 September 2009 6:06:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TPP:"you are doing the same thing – trying to portray mothers as bad instead of fathers. "

Not at all. I've gone out of my way to point out that the total subset of children who are abused is quite small as a proportion of the population. It's just that they are mostly from single-mother households. That's not in any way judgemental, just factual. Some fathers abuse their kids as well, but on the whole, if dad's around, the kids are safer.

If it makes sense to address young males with advertising designed to shame in order to reduce the road toll, why does it not make sense to do the same sort of thing directed at single mothers in order to reduce abuse and neglect?

Personally, I find both concepts revolting, but "what's sauce for the goose"...
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 27 September 2009 7:37:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TPP:"you are doing the same thing – trying to portray mothers as bad instead of fathers. "

Anti:”Not at all. I've gone out of my way to point out that the total subset of children who are abused is quite small as a proportion of the population.”

Oh Anti that makes no sense. If so small what are you complaining about? If the men here have kids that stayed with abusive mums; so what if the numbers aren’t that big.

This feeling of out of sight out of mind. In General section you appear to support a right of freedom for parents to be behind closed doors. Whereas you also want all doors open if it’s your kid. So this is why: “Australians in denial about child sexual abuse” Topic.

I would say in general Aussie’s have no interest in opening any doors unless it affects their own wants personally. Not denial, just lack of interest. So maybe the only thing that works is letting society know what tax dollars are spent on this abuse.

“It's just that they are mostly from single-mother households. “

Well looks like judges decide in the same manner as this. Not individual cases but a blanket observation.

“If it makes sense to address young males with advertising designed to shame in order to reduce the road toll, why does it not make sense to do the same sort of thing directed at single mothers in order to reduce abuse and neglect?”

It does make sense, do it. I guess the only poster I can think of is a pregnant women drinking. Not even sure if it was in this country.

“Personally, I find both concepts revolting, but "what's sauce for the goose"...”

Pointing out that behavior is shameful can work. It only shames the ones where they recognize the truth of what they are doing. If a young man doesn’t speed he shouldn’t feel anything towards the signs. Shame is wrapped up in pride, if you want pride in yourself; do no shameful things.

Eye – you're right, and I’m trying to catch up.
Posted by The Pied Piper, Monday, 28 September 2009 8:31:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy